Why I’m wary of Calvinists (by William Thornton)

The SBC Plodder is back with another examination of Calvinism. I will put on my Karnak turban and predict a lively discussion. After all, I have ESP-N.

I’m a hacker and a plodder and am no different than the other fifty thousand or so SBC pastors but I do have a thirty year history with Calvinism and Calvinists and, unsurprisingly, have an opinion about it and them. To be candid, while I’m mostly ambivalent about Calvinismm, I’m decidedly wary of Calvinists. Here’s why:

1. Calvinists can be, well, rather arrogant. No, they don’t have a monopoly on such but my observation is that they have acquired more of it than one would expect from their numbers. And since they have it, they are happy to share it with the rest of us – the unwashed, sub-calvinist masses.

Here’s a selection of quotes from a recent SBCVoices piece on Calvinism:

“When I consider how long I fought the Doctrines of Grace, I now wonder why. I must decrease and He must increase.”
“Why is it appealing? Maybe because it is what the Bible teaches?
Tweaking the question, why is it that now young pastors are reaching the proper interpretation of these texts?”
“…because the conservative resurgence handed us a Bible, and told us to believe all of it.”
“… as I think the teachings of Calvinism come straight from the Bible, what has led to a resurgence of Calvinism is not any psychological effect or comfort but careful biblical study.”
“…the source of the [Calvinist] resurgence remains God’s Word.”
“The evangelical Calvinists have done such a good job that they are almost the only game in town for a vibrant faith that is intellectually stimulating at the same time. Other evangelical voices have a lot of catching up to do, if they can and want to.”

I read this stuff and find it to be a nostalgic reminder of seminary hallway arguments, inevitable classroom debates, eager young theologs brimming with certainty, and adorable young calvinist polemicists waging scorched earth doctrinal campaigns. No thanks.

I’m all for defending a doctrinal position but perhaps there are Calvinists who will admit that there are other followers of Christ who are scholarly, biblical, and non-calvinist. Is it a lonely search for the Calvinists who has a modicum of humility mixed with the acknowledgement that there are yet some mysteries to our faith?

Maybe all of those kind of Calvinists just stay off of the blogs and discussion forums.

2. I’ve been around too many churches that have been wrecked by Calvinists.

No, Calvinists don’t have a lock on wrecking churches and I certainly know many more non-calvinist pastors who have wrecked churches. The latter just don’t hurl themselves headlong into the task out of their doctrinal positions.

What is one to say when a Calvinist gains a pulpit and immediately declares that there is heresy in the church that must be rooted out, the heresy being that the church is not sufficiently Calvinist?

What is one to say when sermons begin with “God doesn’t love everyone”
or “God may choose this child for heaven and this child is not chosen and is bound for hell”? I recognize that these statements can be nuanced, and we all like to be provocative at times, but is it surprising that a Calvinist pastor can be said to divide the church over such teaching?

What is one to say when the Calvinist pastor aggressively tries to implement an elder system of church governance, and it appears to be less about biblical church polity than about the pastor installing his allies in positions of power and authority to the exclusion of all others?

3. Calvinists have been known to be less than forthcoming with search committees.

Tom Ascol, an erudite and reasonable man, blogged last year about some documents that were being distributed in Tennessee among SBC churches. Their thrust was described as ‘how to smoke out a Calvinistic pastor in your church.’

I can see where this stuff comes from.

My evidence is anecdotal and limited but in my experience Calvinist pastors have minimized their Calvinist beliefs with search committees in order to gain a pulpit. I hate to say it but this is precisely the technique some liberal pastors have employed with church committees – obfuscate, finesse, dart and weave.

No, I’m not saying what most calvinists say to a committee, but this is what some committee members have relayed to me.

I would absolutely advise any church to be thorough enough in their search process to determine a prospective pastor’s beliefs on Calvinism. I know that Calvinists generally eschew the term ‘calvinist’ in favor of other labels and descriptors. Laypeople must be savvy enough to understand the vocabulary.

If my experience with Calvinists did not include their negative impact on churches I would label this article, “Why I am annoyed with Calvinists” rather than “Why I am wary of Calvinists.” It is this last point that moves the conversation from annoying to wariness. I can do annoying pretty good myself.

If calvinism is appealing to young SBCers, a fact I do not dispute, it is repulsive in many expressions to not a small number of SBCers. Why is it that some circulate ‘calvinist smoke-out guides’ or why have some churches cut funding to calvinist SBC institutions? Are those who so act evil, misguided, or alarmist? Perhaps there is something concrete and important behind these acts.

Perhaps my experience is atypical and an aberration. I’d be pleased to know that is the case. If not, I’ll look askance at Calvinists but still rejoice when Christ is preached and Christ is preached by every Calvinist I know.

As I’ve said before Debbie….I have no problem with calvinists being in the SBC. I have a problem with the 5 pt. CALVINISTS. But, I even love them, too

David

July 27, 2011 12:27 am

J W

It is none of my business who Debbie loves or does not love and none of my business who God loves or doesn’t. If God loves everybody,a statement He denies,He would love all the Demons and reprobates in Hell. I’m not buying it. Who is man to contend against God. We are less than dust in the balance. God doesn’t take orders from men on how to distribute his grace.

I was irresistibly chosen for Calvinism back in my college days. I can only wonder how many people in those days thought I was arrogant, divisive and obnoxious as I worked through the discovery of those views.

I am a moderate Calvinist by today’s standards, but I think that I would have to plead guilty in the early days of my journey to the arrogant/obnoxious accusation.

I am curious how you define the difference between arrogance and direct expressions of conviction. One reason I’m as direct as I am (and a few of your examples looks like they came from my comments) is because we live in an age when hard truth is frowned upon. People are supposed to wallow in a faith neutral and broad enough to encompass everyone. Anyone who firmly holds to a definite opinion is labelled arrogant. Of your examples, only one of them bore any resemblance to what I would call arrogance – a mindset that not only believes, “I am right and you are wrong,” but goes on to denigrate those who are not me. And by denigrate I don’t mean tell them they are wrong, I mean imply an inherent personal superiority.

Claiming to be right is not the same as claiming to be superior. Defending a truth with teeth is not the same as arrogance. If I believe the Bible teaches something, then of course I believe those who disagree hold to an unbiblical position. What is arrogant about that? I can (and do, and have) fully recognize and affirm that many non-Calvinists are good, godly, faithful, Bible loving men, but I can also state that despite their faithfulness, they get the Bible wrong on this issue. And I trust they would say the same thing about me. Humility is not defined as going soft on truth, nor is arrogance defined as taking a firm stance.

“I’ve been around too many churches that have been wrecked by Calvinists.”

You have been around longer than I and have seen more than I, no disputing that. But I have yet to see a single church wrecked by Calvinists. Are they out there? Yes, I have no doubt. But the problem is hardly pervasive. I think the relatively few examples that exist have been built up as though they are representative of the movement as a whole.

There is also a problem of perspective. I’ve said before that I see the problem moving the other direction. The hostility is not Calvinists against non-Calvinists but much more the other direction. Calvinists are labelled arrogant not because they are actually arrogant but because they dare to voice a dissenting opinion. They are labelled divisive not because they divide but because others would rather fight them than give them a voice. So from where I stand as a Calvinist, I see a lot more rhetoric and damage done by those who oppose Calvinism than by Calvinists.

“Calvinists have been known to be less than forthcoming with search committees.”

People should be honest about their beliefs. If you are a Calvinist and someone asks you about Calvinism, answer honestly. But what I’ve seen happen (and have experienced myself) is churches which firmly shut the door to Calvinists even if everything else looks great. (Note: I took the initiative to disclose my Calvinism to search committees, but I do not believe this is a necessary initiative.) I’m now pastoring a church composed almost entirely of non-Calvinists. They were wary about calling a Calvinist pastor but I’m grateful they took a chance. What they have found is that Calvinists are not the monsters we are made out to be. Search committees hear people like you talk about arrogant, divisive Calvinists and they believe you. But the evidence is not there, and good, godly, faithful men are turned away from churches without any attempt to actually understand what they believe. When most people in the SBC hear the term Calvinism, what comes to mind is a caricature, a misrepresentation, a monster that does not exist.

“Why is it that some circulate ‘calvinist smoke-out guides’ or why have some churches cut funding to calvinist SBC institutions?”

There are several things I could say about this, but one observation jumps out: which group that you describe in this sentence is being divisive?

Chris, I appreciate your candor but I think I am familiar with arrogance. On calvinists and committees, take my word “wary” as the salient term. Let the candidate be forthcoming and let the committee be thorough.

You will recall that I have two articles on calvinism, one that is complimentary and one that is critical. I’m a balanced kind of guy, although I am aware that some SBC non-calvinists are not.

But I’m curious how your quotes are examples as arrogance. You say Calvinists tend to be arrogant, then you cite several examples. But what makes those comments arrogant? Flesh it out for me. What about the things I said are arrogant?

I don’t recall whose is whose, Chris. Perhaps to you and others these are expressions of theological certitude, correctness, and absoluteness. To me they have perhaps, possibly, maybe, the slightest pungency. Nothing personal. These were the closest examples at hand, not the most egregious.

You used them as examples of Calvinist arrogance. How are they arrogant? Not how might they slightly be considered a little possibly not good, how are they arrogant? Or am I being arrogant by asking you to tell me in clear terms how the examples you gave of people committing sin are, in fact, sinful?

Chris, may I note here that you use words and make conclusions that I did not? You also put words in my mouth (I said C “can be” arrogant, not “tend to be” arrogant), but I’ll answer your question (from below) nonetheless: those comments look arrogant to me. On all of the but the first, you might look at them from the perspective of the non-calvinists. The universe is divided into Bible believers, careful Bible students, proper Bible interpreters and, well, the converse of those. As the one comment said, you guys are the “only game in town.” That’s arrogance. Perhaps you have a blind spot here.

I mentioned above that only one of the comments you quoted struck me as arrogant. It was the one you mentioned – the one about the only game in town. How ironic that it turns out that quote was by a non-Calvinist! Jim G commented below that the comment was his, and he is not a Calvinist. So that does not serve as an example of Calvinist arrogance since a Calvinist did not say it! Perhaps a note on your post correcting that mistake would be in order.

And I’ll retract “tend to” and replace with “can be” but I’m still wanting to know how those examples are arrogant. It is not arrogance for someone to tell someone else that they are wrong. I am a Calvinist. If you are not a Calvinist, I think you are wrong. This is not about arrogance but simply about the nature of belief. People don’t like being told they are wrong, but that doesn’t make the statement arrogance.

As for putting words in your mouth, I’m curious if you also had in mind the place where I say you gave examples of people committing sin. But this is one reason I am rather agitated that you accuse me of arrogance (by quoting me in your examples of Calvinist arrogance). What is arrogance if not a form of pride? And what is pride if not sin? As such, it is a serious allegation and your brothers and sisters in Christ who you accuse of this sin deserve more than general statements. You didn’t accuse me of simply saying something you didn’t like; you accused me of sin. How was it sin? How was it arrogance?

Chris, I commented below on the final example. It shouldn’t have been included.

I expressed an opinion. You rejected it. Fair enough. If I had wanted to describe you as being a sinner, I would have used that terminology. No need to impose on me your wild conclusions derived from what I didn’t say.

My number one objection to items such as this is how do you define “Calvinist”? Do you lump all of them together from moderates, 2 pointers, all the way to hyper-Calvinists? Southern Baptists are Calvinistic, be believe in Total Depravity and Perseverance of the Saints, we affirm the Predestination is in the Bible someplace, but don’t really want to deal with it. The term itself has become as ambiguous as you would like it to be. It’s become like “democrat” or “republican” where we find the most extreme cases, classify the whole lot and them take pop shots. It’s becoming more and more absurd. The reason that churches tank, people are arrogant and search committees are deceived is that people are sinful, not Calvinistic. The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth, which is why I’m a Wovenist now.

July 26, 2011 6:30 pm

volfan007

I think William is talking about 5 pt. CALVINISTS in this piece. He’s not talking about all the different types of calvinists in the SBC.

that’s my take on it…

July 26, 2011 7:01 pm

Lydia

Dan, Do you find, in general, those who agree with 2-4 of the points call themselves, Calvinists, as a rule?

Just curious. In my experience they do not usually refer to themselves as Calvinist but will say they agree with such and such points making them a __ pt Calvinist.

William, since you quoted me above: “…because the conservative resurgence handed us a Bible, and told us to believe all of it,” while calling me “arrogant,” I can only assume that you see uncertainty as non-arrogant. You assume a whole host of negative statements about me in order to call me “arrogant” over one sentence. Why would you even assume that I don’t believe there are “other followers of Christ who are scholarly, biblical, and non-calvinist?” Is it because I believe that the Bible teaches 4-point Calvinism?Believing something is true necessarily means that you believe others are wrong. I assume you believe I’m wrong about Calvinism?

Your final 2 points are stereotypes, and are unhelpful.

July 26, 2011 6:34 pm

volfan007

and then, we get a long comment that perfectly describing what William was talking about….lol

Jared, actually, my final two points are anecdotally driven, not stereotypical or data driven. And, I was deliberate in not grouping all calvinists together. Perhaps you missed it. I readily admit that my views are based on my experiences with calvinists. I’m entitled to that.

Debbie, it’s believable…but have a good laugh. A sense of humor goes a long way in life. And you’re right, you don’t owe me anything but Christian civility.

Bob, I’ve always appreciated your comments over the years in the blogs. I’d like for you to note that I have expressed wariness towards Calvinists, not rejection.

I don’t believe that I have to prove, Jared, that I am wary of calvinists because of the three reasons given.

July 27, 2011 7:50 am

Debbie Kaufman

William: Why would I be civil when you write things like this. Trolls expect that too.

July 27, 2011 12:17 am

volfan007

William,

You are right, again…it’s been my experience, as well.

DAvid

July 27, 2011 12:29 am

Debbie Kaufman

David: You keep saying this, William keeps saying this but where is the proof? You have exaggerated before so I am having a very hard time believing you.

July 27, 2011 1:03 am

Debbie Kaufman

I would request everyone read this <a href="http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c171/tomascol/page1.jpg"list that was sent around Florida last year and this same list that William erroneously believes may have merit. It’s so ridiculous and based on pure lies. It just shows the lengths Christians, I still can’t believe it but Christians, will go to in order to make a group or person look bad enough to spread fear to exclude. I know the pattern and accusations like this were used to get rid of some in the past five years. This is a move to rid the SBC of Calvinists, I would bet money. And it’s wrong to do so. I’m not surprised but this will continue until it’s stopped. We are growing smaller because this type of assassination of character works.

July 27, 2011 1:13 am

Debbie Kaufman

Sorry, that didn’t work. Click on the link to Tom Ascol post William referred to in the OP, then click on the document in the article to enlarge and read.

As for Williams charge What is one to say when the Calvinist pastor aggressively tries to implement an elder system of church governance, and it appears to be less about biblical church polity than about the pastor installing his allies in positions of power and authority to the exclusion of all others? I would like proof that this is being done as well. As I stated earlier, our church has a minister who is Reformed in his teachings, but we have both in our church. We do not have a Reformed staff, but a staff built of both views. Varying views. So I would like proof that any of the above is happening. I just don’t believe it.

July 27, 2011 1:18 am

Debbie Kaufman

By the way, Tom Ascol and Founders haven’t made a peep in a year, does that bother you guys and you are seeking to make them make noise again? I don’t know that they will. And it could be because 1. You guys are not a threat. 2. Things are going well in the Convention and except for a few noisemakers like you and David, SBCToday and Peter, we are content to live in peace with other non-Calvinists and they are content to live in peace with Calvinists. So why are you rocking the boat?

July 27, 2011 1:23 am

Debbie Kaufman

David: As I was reading through Tom Ascol’s comments I ran across yours and I thought I would remind you what you said and Tom Ascol’s response to you, which I thought was good. William’s being “anecdotal” by his definition might benefit from Tom’s response too.

David, you said last year:

I personally know of 4 or 5 Churches in W. TN…here lately… and some of them have been large Churches….where they called a man to be their Pastor, who was an aggressive, 5 point Calvinist, who came into the Church to change the Church; and they did not know that he was a Five point Calvinist. And, the Churches went thru major strife and division, and got severely hurt in the situation. And, at one of those Churches, I was specifically told that they asked the man if he was a five point Calvinist,and he told them that he was not. But, then, when he got to the Church, they found out that he was. And, this Church had tremendous problems, and they ended up firing the fella.

So, I imagine that’s where this memo is probably coming from. But, to act like it’s something from the Tennessee Baptist Convention, or even the SBC, as some have hinted in here in their comments, is absurd. In fact, it’s not even something that’s even widespread in W. TN where it has apparently originated. I cant even find anyone else that even knows about this memo. So, it’s an isolated thing from some lone person out there, who feels that they were ambushed by a five point Calvinist Pastor, and he wants to warn other Churches.

Just commenting in here to try to help with the understanding of this thing…like Karen H. tried to do. I am also not trying to argue with anyone, nor am I trying to stir up anything. Just letting yall know something. That’s all. In other words, you heard from someone who heard from someone and so on…

Tom’s response to you was: David:

Thanks for stopping by. Unfortunately, your 3rd and 4th hand accounts don’t really add much to the discussion here. For every story you can tell about things you have heard from somebody who was told something to somebody else about churches hurt by an unwise Calvinist, I can tell 5 stories of people in churches who have acted godlessly in attacking pastors because of biblical conversion, biblical ecclesiology and biblical salvation.

The documents that I put up have been used in 3 different states. I am glad that you and your friends don’t have any first hand experience with them, but that does not mean, as you conclude, that “it’s an isolated thing from some lone person out there, who feels that they were ambushed by a five point Calvinist Pastor, and he wants to warn other Churches.” That is rather naive.

Come one now. You know you and William are making this up. The Debbie has spoken and hath declared there is no proof. If it doesn’t come up on the first page of a Google search (or as The Debbie calls it “research”, snicker) it just isn’t true. The Debbie has spoken.
(/sarcasm)

Ok, now I’ll end the sarcasm. I’m a 5 ponit Calvinist. I’m such a 5 pointer that I won’t let my wife plant anything but TULIPs in the garden, ‘k. But I’ve seen the after effects of one particular Calvinist pastor who came in to an SBC with a “my way or the highway” attitude and basically said if you were not a 5 point Calvinist you are a heretic. More than half the church left because of his attitude.

Now, I don’t think most Calvinists are like this. I would bet that the majority of us are not even though there are a few like The Debbie who are Calvinist Warriors to defend their precious Calvinism (whoops, I said I had turned off the sarcasm). But, although I hate to admit it, What William and David say they’ve seen has happened.

Because you are a follower of Christ? Because I am your Christian brother?

I can’t think of better reasons than those, Debbie.

July 27, 2011 7:53 am

Debbie Kaufman

I’m just sitting back, laughing and shaking my head. This is ridiculous as the charges are ridiculous. We simply know what we believe and why, plus we are convinced that what we believe is in the Bible. Yet that is arrogant. Unbelievable. I have nothing more to say. Am I angry? A tad. No, quite a bit actually.

July 26, 2011 7:08 pm

Debbie Kaufman

I might add that this is exactly what unbelievers say about non-Calvinists as well as all Christians. It’s not true when they say it and it’s not true now. I am so tired of all of this actually I don’t care what you think anymore. We’re SB get used to it and learn to live with it and I’m not going to be silent about teaching Calvinism as you are not going to be silent in teaching what you believe. Difference is I’m not asking you to be silent, just to quit being anti-Calvinist. I don’t live or teach according to what you think, I live and teach hopefully to the Glory of God.

David, all of Jared’s points are as valid as the generalizations Mr. Thornton makes, based on what one has seen individuals do in the past. And then you call his dissertation as example of arrogance? Why didn’t you call Mr. Thornton arrogant?

I’ve been in an SBC church for 30+ years and have yet to see a church torn apart by Calvinism. I also spent about 15 years as a Presbyterian and didn’t see any of what Mr. Thornton says there, either.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the worst things about Calvinism is what Baptists SAY about Calvinism.

July 26, 2011 7:13 pm

Debbie Kaufman

Amen Bob. Also all I have to do is look back a mere five years to see destruction and it wasn’t from Calvinists.

July 26, 2011 7:56 pm

Debbie Kaufman

Although I knew we would be next. I was right. Now call that arrogance and I may not deny it.

July 26, 2011 7:57 pm

volfan007

I can name you many, many churches that were torn apart by CALVINISTS…..many….just in my neck of the woods alone….

David, define “torn apart.” Also, tell us what these Calvinists did that is directly associated with Calvinism that “tore” their churches apart.

July 27, 2011 12:57 am

Jason

David,

I think “multiple” would probably be a better term than “many, many”. I seriously doubt there are that many churches in rural Tennessee torn apart by Calvinism, though I bet there are some.

I am one that feels called to church revitalization and recovery. I have been at 2 churches in the last few years, both have had multiple splits and multiple issues. Both have been very large churches in the past and have produced some very recognizable names in the SBC. Not a single split that those churches have experienced was around the issue of calvinism. In fact, the calvinists they have had have been among their best pastors (their testimony, not mine). The first church split several times…over charismatic issues, over deceit from the pastor, over bad financial decisions of the pastor, over arrogance of the pastor (this guy is a popular guy in SBC life) and possible moral failings, over fundamentalist/KJV issues, and over forced legalistic/Gotthardite issues. None of those were Calvinists…some were very outspoken non-calvinists. Five splits/bad pastors in one church over 2 decades. None were calvinist related. Today that church is doing well…stabilized and turned around by a calvinist pastor (not me, I worked for that pastor).

The church I am at now has had 4 or 5 bad pastors who drove the church from 800 to 80…none were calvinists. Most were outspoken anti-calvinists. The guy before me stabilized things. Now the church is growing…it is evangelistic and healthy.

Anecdotal evidence is simply that….anecdotal.

No real conclusions can be drawn from all of that.

July 27, 2011 12:59 am

Jason

If there are so many of those churches out there that have been destroyed by calvinism and/or calvinist pastors…can we get a list?

If there are “many, many” it shouldn’t be hard to get a list to verify. Right?

And one part of the Body of Christ rejecting another part of the Body of Christ is every bit as damaging as one’s human body rejecting a heart transplant. It simply ought not to happen.

July 26, 2011 7:15 pm

Christiane

If, in faith, people use their reasoning to seek understanding of the mysteries of God, some good may come of this as long as people realize that the capacity to comprehend all of the mysteries is not given to them.

That attitude makes it possible for people to consider, discuss, and dialogue about the nature of these great mysteries;
as long as they retain the humility that comes from knowing that the nature of the mystery transcends their ability to grasp it.

July 26, 2011 7:24 pm

Christiane

But just supposing someone comes along and IS arrogant and attacks you personally because of your point of view,
here is some good advice from the English metaphysical poet, George Herbert:

“IF A DONKEY BRAY AT YOU, DON’T BRAY AT HIM.”

(George Herbert)

That is very good advice because most of us think that we have got to ‘react’. Much more wisdom in keeping your dignity and letting the arrogant ones own their own behavior.

“Is it a lonely search for the Calvinists who has a modicum of humility mixed with the acknowledgement that there are yet some mysteries to our faith?”

I’m just not sure that non-calvinists see the irony of comments like this.

Of course there are arrogant Calvinists. (Ever read blogs?)

Of course there are arrogant non-calvinists. (Ever read blogs or been to the SBC?)

The fact that some think that arrogance is located in one theological position is a little sad, or even that a theological position is more prone to it. In fact, one could say that is a type of arrogance. (But I digress.)

I have some reasons for why I think this stereotype exists, but as long as stereotypes are given as reasons for being “wary” the conversation is slanted.

In an effort to be fair to William he did say in reference to arrogance, “No, they don’t have a monopoly on such…”

I’d be interested in hearing why you think this sterotype exists. For me I do think there is a certain type of…hmmm, not sure what to call it…maybe “arrogance” is the right word, that is unique to Calvinism. I’ve never heard of a cage-stage of Arminianism. But I think there is something unique that happens when someone begins to embrace the doctrines of grace. And I don’t think it’s just cultural because John Newton had to address this issue of arrogance with a young Calvinist back in the late 1700’s.

July 26, 2011 7:55 pm

Jason

Yes, that is true. I think William dealt with this issue fairly well. Tough issue to tackle, and he tried to do so for the sake of balance. I appreciate his efforts.But I am still “wary” of this issue being issue #1, especially considering it isn’t unique to calvinists at all, as he admitted.

In fact, none of the 3 are unique to Calvinists at all…nor, one could argue, are they most prevalent, within the SBC, among Calvinists.

Disregarding the arrogance issue, I have seen more churches split by non-calvinists than calvinists. I have seen more search committees lied to be non-calvinist pastors seeking to change the church to purpose-driven or contemporary style or enter a myriad of pragmatic or programmatic issues. I am serving at a church that has been split several times…none by calvinists or over calvinism.

I am with William being put off by Calvinists that do those 3 things…but I am put off by ANYONE doing those 3 things. I just don’t think you can single out Calvinists as “more guilty” or even more susceptible to those issues.

Agreed. I couldn’t help but think of Andrew Fuller’s comments with the “splitting churches thing”:

“I desire to seek both ‘truth and peace’, and so far as I can enjoy the latter without sacrificing the former, I hope it will be one chief object of my pursuit. Should what I have written be published, and should any number of persons, instead of seriously attending to evidence, take fire, call names, and set their churches in a flame–and should they after this upbraid me with having ‘stirred up divisions in the churches,’ for all or any of this I hope I shall never be thought accountable.”

This from the Memoirs of Mr. Fuller.

July 26, 2011 8:30 pm

Jason

“I’d be interested in hearing why you think this sterotype exists.”

I don’t have much interaction with Presbyterians or those born and raised in calvinistic/reformed denominations, so I am not sure if the stereotype carries over to them at all.

But since this stereotype exists within SBC calvinism, and that is our context, that is what I will address. There is a type of arrogance that comes with some sort of awakening and the related invigoration from study and new-found belief.These people are excited about new beliefs…and for some of them it is the first time that they have had a firm footing of theology, thus a type of arrogance.

More than that, there is a sense in which anyone who is excited about something they are more assertive in promoting those views. They want others to see God the way they see Him. Well intended, but to those who don’t agree it comes off as arrogance.

Also, anyone who is firm in their beliefs appears arrogant. Since they aren’t going to back down, they appear more arrogant than they probably intend.

Speaking for myself, and what I also know is true in others experience, there is a little bit of a push-back against the fact that many of us were not taught theology/doctrine at all growing up and so there is a little bit of resentment. Maybe that is immaturity. Maybe part of it is fair. I had numerous people in my church (including staff) tell me “you’ll grow out of that” (how’s that for arrogance?), which further emboldened me and probably made me address them more arrogantly than I should have or would have.

In the SBC, non-calvinism is the default and the majority, so there is a little bit of a “little man syndrome” with calvinists. It seems the majority is against them, most of them not because they are convinced from scripture, but because of a caricature from the pulpit. So, like my parents, they say “calvinism is wrong….wait, what is it?” The minority fighting for a spot always tends to appear more arrogant than they intend…especially when they convictionally hold to something a lot of people reject off-hand.

Lastly, when pastors are preaching against something, and there are some that disagree with the pastor, they come off as arrogant. If the church is really behind the pastor, a disagreement with him, even on a non-essential issue like this, can come off as an arrogant attack on the non-calvinist pastor…even if it isn’t. If the pastor speaks forcefully against calvinism or forbids its teaching, the divide is amped up.

So, while there are arrogant calvinists without question…I think there are multiple factors that make it appear worse than most calvinists actually are or want to be. We are all susceptible to pride and arrogance – no theological position moreso than another.

Maybe if you started with Google instead of Snopes you wouldn’t have so many problems finding something. Isn’t Snopes more for debunking falsehoods? Just one of the google links with a simple search of the words “John Newton Calvinist arrogance” was this one.

Yeah, I kind of read it quickly. I wasn’t familiar with it before. I find something funny about the phrase “caged-phase.” I imagine I have probably hit that phase a few times in my theological life and it wasn’t even over Calvinism. Prayerfully, I am past it all now, but you never know I guess.

I know from my own heart…that often whenever I have a huge theological shift I’m so excited, many times prideful, and often a little disillusioned that I hadn’t been taught this before, that in my exuberance, youthful ignorance, etc. it’d probably be best to keep me in a cage for awhile. But I blog instead. LOL.

And now that the enemy has been dealt with, it’s back to being enemies again?

July 26, 2011 9:09 pm

John

I’ve been a Southern Baptist for quite over 40 years and a convinced ‘Calvinist’ for over 10 years. I believe I’m right, or I wouldn’t believe it. However, I also believe that I could be incorrect in my interpretation of Scripture since I’m fallible. I’ve met all kinds of arrogant folks, and some Calvinists can be that, not because of what they believe, but because of who they are. As a matter of fact, if you replaced ‘Calvinist’ with ‘Fundamentalist’ in your post, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you since I grew up around more of them. I think arrogance and a ‘I better than you’ attitude is independent of one’s scriptural interpretations.

Before leaving this ‘atta boy,’ I scrolled through the subsequent comments. No answer to the question has been offered. I believe I could rather quickly point out that there are those on either side of this issue which make their side look horrible…and there are those who represent well their position with grace and deference. I think the establishment of straw men and ad hominems are far easier ways to ‘argue’ than to have a serious (even ‘energetic’) engagement concerning the theological issues at hand.

I find this whole post an example of Why I’m wary of all those Not-a-5-Point-Calvinists types out there.

This is the same old garbage that you Not-a-5-Point-Calvinist have been spewing for the last 16+ years that I have been a pastor under constant fire in the SBC. I wonder if you might have any numbers/idea of just how many Godly Pastors have been attacked and run off from their church for daring to preach all of the scriptures, and not just John 3:16. Perhaps there is a correlation between what you call arrogance and the conviction forged in the fires of persecution at the hands of all those loving Not-a-5-point-Calvinist out there.

Anyone who has passion and conviction concerning the doctrines of the faith is now somehow arrogant. Seriously? I wonder if Jesus was considered arrogant? Probably…

Sub-Calvinist??? I have never once used such a word… I know of not a single Calvinist who has ever used such a word… and your use of such a word proves your Anti-Calvinist sentiments.

Apparently you vies Calvinist to be “Sub-Christian” monsters… Arrogant, Deceitful, and Destructive.

Most Calvinist I know do not shy away from preaching the difficult doctrines of the Bible. Can you honestly say this is true of most Not-a-5-Point-Calvinist in the SBC? Would say that most Not-a-5-Point-Calvinist in the SBC preach expositionally through books of the Bible? Some may, but most do not.

Oooooooo, and YES Calvinist are with Jesus! It is my sincere hope that you are as well… Jesus was very passionate, and he did not shy away from speaking truth and confronting doctrinal error. Something for which you are now condemning Calvinist as being arrogant for doing… Don’t you find that just a little uncomfortable?

Thanks Dave… I knew I could count on you to let me know when it was time to get back in my cage. You have to keep Calvinist Monsters on a very short leash 😉

July 27, 2011 11:34 am

Debbie Kaufman

I will agree to disagree as to whether William’s writings are thoughtful as I find them to be more divisive which does take some cunning thinking. It is certainly not based on fact, and as he self-described it, are anecdotal, which is certainly not helpful in bridging anything. Give me proof, I can buy it. Just throw stories into the air, I’m not buying it. Nor should I be expected to.

For five or more years exclusion has been the name of the game, not inclusion until the last couple of years. Yet that just isn’t good enough for those who love to stir up things and fight or want just themselves and those who think like them to be in the SBC. Hopefully they are loud but in the minority. If this were based on truth, you would not hear a word from me. As in the CJ Mahaney episode, there was proof and it was shown to be more cultic in nature than Biblical and I saw this, thought it wrong, but knew it had nothing to do with Calvinism the theology, but it was wrong and happened none the less. It is being taken care of.

I see accusations with no proof yet you tell me it was thoughtfully written. No David, thoughtful writing has proof in it. Shadow of a doubt proof. This is just sounding off with no basis. That is character assassination.

My point was that the inability to engage in decent discussion, without caricature and misrepresentation of the other side. This is all too common in blogs, but the Calvinism thing seems to bring out the worst in everyone.

July 27, 2011 11:34 am

Jim G.

Yeah, I know. I know you hold dearly to BIFF, as do I, but this might be the straw that breaks the convention’s back. I hope not, but I am afraid….

Jim G.

July 27, 2011 11:45 am

Debbie Kaufman

One needs to just look at the opening post to understand why it exists. But I think you knew that when you allowed such drivel to be posted Dave.

Thanks for posting William’s drivel. It gives me encouragement and hope to know that you will soon be posting my drivel again! 🙂 The problem between non-Calvinists and Calvinists is really the same problem between any two groups of people — an abundance of arrogance and a lack of love/charity toward those who we disagree with. When I wrote my post late last night, the comment stream here was only 53. Now nearing 200. Pretty much what I expected. William has lots of lunches to buy!

No one is saying that Christians cannot be dogmatic in what they believe, but far too often, being “dogmatic” is an excuse to be mean. That, by the way, is not limited to any one particular theology and I’m not talking about anyone in particular. Let us hold to our convictions, but when we disagree, let us not be so dogmatic that we cannot acknowledge someone else’s feelings or observations without labeling them a liar. Let us not also be so dogmatic that we think that when the other person is wrong about Scripture that we are automatically right. One of us can be right and the other wrong; both of us cannot be right; BUT, we may both be wrong.

When we don’t even acknowledge that we maybe wrong, particularly in areas of Scripture that sincere, followers of Christ have disagreed about for generations, then the only alternative is to dig in even further and become even more dogmatic. And, that’s not gonna be good for anybody. I seem to remember Paul talking about the connection between a (dogmatic) faith and charity somewhere in Scripture. It might help in future discussion, but I could be wrong. Thanks and God bless,

Debbie, we have about 8 or 10 regular contributors here. Almost all of them are Calvinists. My vision for this site is that it represents a multitude of viewpoints, not just one.

There are three (or more) kinds of blogs. There are personal blogs, which obviously express the view of that person.

There are group, point-of-view blogs. SBC Today has become a very good blog in my opinion, under the direction of Steve Lemke and whomever else is working with them. But it is a POV blog. You tend to get the traditionalist, non-Calvinistic viewpoint. I have no problem with that. As I said, I think it has become a great blog – a must read for Baptists – since it was raised from the dead a few months ago.

Our vision for Voices is that it should be a group-diverse blog. Each writer writes his or her own views and others interact. I encourage our writers to disagree with one another. My goal (often frustrated) is that we would be a place that could demonstrate loving, godly disagreement.

So, I publish William’s “drivel” (which is only drivel because you disagree with it.) I publish my own drivel, and Howell’s and Dan Barnes’ and…well, you get the picture.

But I would actually love to have a few more regular contributors on the non-C side of things for a healthy mix.

I think, though, that your comment gives evidence of one of our Baptist problems. If you agree with me, you are smart. If you disagree, you are “drivel.”

I have disagreed with (and even had some lively arguments with) William Thornton. But what he writes is thoughtful. It is not, in my humble opinion, drivel.

Alford’s point is valid. Wasn’t this one reason the Pharisees hated Jesus? He was dogmatic in his claims and did not mind telling the Pharisees when they were wrong. Jesus demonstrated the value of belief, of conviction, and he was hated for it. But these days, solid conviction and dogmatic belief are seen as bad things. No one is allowed to say, “I’m right and your wrong.” Anyone who dares to take such a position must be arrogant.

Are they ‘united’ in their understanding of the Lord’s Supper (its Biblical meaning),
or are there important differences in their understanding ?

July 27, 2011 9:39 am

Chief Katie

Christiane, No difference that I’m aware of. Of course, we do not hold to the Catholic belief of transubstantiation.

July 27, 2011 11:44 am

Christiane

Hi Chief Katie,

Thanks for responding. I had read something about this on Trevin Wax’s blog and wanted to know more.

It is good if there are no differences that are major, because in gathering around the Lord’s Table together, the Christian bond between the Calvinists and the non-Calvinists will be strengthened, and the differences between them will become less destructive because of their ‘community’ in Christ.

I am assuming that they both accept that Our Lord is ‘spiritually’ present with them at His Table, at least.

There are variations in how some see the ordinances as means of grace. The classic Reformed view is that through the ordinances, God imparts grace to the believer. Thus the term sacrament is often used. Such grace is not seen as saving a person, so no one is saved through baptism or the Lord’s Supper.

Beyond that, the meaning would be very similar to most Baptists: symbolic acts demonstrating the death of Christ, new birth, and God’s grace to us.

Calvinists and non-Calvinists are Christians and they recognize that the bread and fruit of the vine are only symbols of the body and the blood of Christ. No Christians believe that the items used in the Lord’s Supper actually become the body and blood of Christ.

Not yet, no. Please spell it out. I’m still wondering how it is arrogance to say, “I’m right and you’re wrong.” As for the above comment, I’m not saying non-Calvinists are not Christlike. I’m saying that Jesus was hated because he held convictions and stated them plainly even if they went against the claims of the Pharisees. What you call arrogance in Calvinists looks more like the kind of conviction held by Christ. Many non-Calvinists hold similar convictions, and I’m sure there are many points of doctrine about which you would hold such conviction. I’m not saying this trait is lacking from non-Calvinists; I’m saying its presence in Calvinists is not arrogance.

July 27, 2011 10:40 am

volfan007

What’s so ironic is that when a 5 pt. CALVINIST is dogmatic, he’s like Jesus telling the Pharisees when they were wrong. But, if a Non 5 pointer is dogmatic, then THEY are the Pharisee!!!!! for beliving in what they believe so dogmatically.

One of the ironies of debating with postmodern people is they will dogmatically deny the possibility of dogmatic truth. That they are being dogmatic doesn’t diminish the fact that they voice opposition to dogma.

In this case, the fact that someone dogmatically states a belief that Calvinists are arrogant doesn’t diminish the fact that what they oppose is not Calvinist arrogance (since none of the examples provided actually show any arrogance) but Calvinist dogmatism.

I have no problem with people being dogmatic, but I do have a problem with dogmatic claims of arrogance against dogmatism! 🙂

Dogmatism can be a very unlovely thing, and even the best of Sovereign Grace believers can speak or act in an unloving manner. However, having said that and having seen many examples of such folly across my 53.5 years as a Christian and nearly 50 years as a believer in these truths, I can say that it often comes as a shock to some calvinists to find out that these teachings must inevitably humble the people who believe them. Sooner or later, they will have to get off of their high horses. Suggest the modern group has yet to be exposed to the writings Luther Rice,Basil Manly, Sr., J.P. Boyce, John Gano, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and a host of others who evince the humbling work of Sovereign Grace.

I’ve heard forms of this quote variously attributed (mostly to Mark Dever) and think it is fitting:

The previous generation fought for the ability to have an inerrant Bible and now they are fitting their children for reading what that inerrant Bible says.

Also remember, narrative does not make normative. I could probably have guessed the content of this article from its title alone. Don’t know why these same accusations/exaggerations/imaginations had to be written again.

July 26, 2011 10:41 pm

volfan007

So, Todd, are you and Mark Dever thus saying that all non 5 pointers are not believing “what the Bible says?”

If I believe the Bible says X on a given issue, and you believe the Bible says Y on that issue, we cannot both be right. One of us is wrong. One of us does not believe what the Bible says.

In the case of Calvinism, either the Calvinist or the non-Calvinist does not believe what the Bible says. It is not an error of simple denial but is a case of misunderstanding. But whatever the reason, someone is not believing what the Bible says on this given issue.

Of course that does not mean the Calvinist or non-Calvinist gets the Bible wrong all the time. Nor does it mean either group is setting out to deny the Bible. But the Bible is teaching something absolutely true, and if what I believe about a given point of theology does not agree with what the Bible says, then on that point I am not believing what the Bible says.

July 27, 2011 4:12 pm

volfan007

So, Chris, I’ll put that down as a “yes, you non 5 pointers dont believe the Bible.”

It means that non-Calvinists believe that on some points Calvinists don’t believe what the Bible says, and vice versa.

The terms are certainly not the most helpful, but as they are the terms you used, I went with them. More precise would be to say that on some points, non-Calvinists get the Bible wrong. I’m sure you believe that on some points, Calvinists get the Bible wrong.

July 27, 2011 4:30 pm

Jim G.

Hey William,

You sure stirred up a hornet’s nest! Ever throw a rock at a hornet’s nest? I remember doing that as a kid. The hornets always knew where the rock came from. :0)

Anyway, the last quote in your list near the beginning of your post was mine – the one about Calvinists almost being the only game in town. For the record, I did not say it in triumph. I said it with a touch of sadness. There needs to be more than one vibrant voice in Evangelical Christianity. I’m not critiquing or criticizing. I just wanted to let you know that quote came from a non-Calvinist.

Sorry. My mistake. It is therefore unfair for me to include it in the list but only Dave Miller can fix it.

July 27, 2011 8:13 am

Jim G.

No prob. :0)

July 27, 2011 8:42 am

Greg Harvey

As I have commented in the past (not on sbcvoices), the doctrines of grace directly address a pride issue for me. I’m on the bright side intellectually and to the extent that coming to Christ were to be an act of intellect, I would be able to take pride in my decision to accept Christ.

That’s why Eph 2:8-9 are so important to me. So that I cannot boast. And that only really works as a passage if you accept the thoroughness of sin-induced depravity. The rest of the five points follow from there. Irresistible grace is more of an explanation of the observation that some clearly show zero sign of regeneration and clear signs of continued rebellion in the world (and perhaps every now and again within the Bride).

But my dad is a staunch opponent of Calvinism and his very simple explanation why is that they seem focused on the intellectual scheme and promote that scheme instead of first and foremost lifting up Jesus Christ so that he can draw all unto himself. I have seen my dad’s concern in full color in an interim pastor who I loved dearly that was considered by Southwest Parkway Baptist in College Station whe Bill Magee became the associational missionary. The situation very nearly caused the church to “form a new unit”. (Sorry. Sunday School Board humor there.)

I never, ever teach Calvinism when I teach the Bible. If a learner is interested in my theological view on big words like predestination, I’ll offer to take that discussion off line with them, preferably within a REAL Baptist setting where the have a bottomless cuppaJoe and pancakes or cinnamon rolls or–near West, Austin/New Braunfels, or Houston–kolaches. We spend far too much of our time proving evolution is philosophically alive and well in Christianity by dividing Christendom into micro-theological, strongly differentiated niche congregations within often arrogantly differentiated denominations. It all is a drunk mockery of Jesus’s high priestly prayer and of his observation that we’ll be known by our love.

Just so the original poster doesn’t perceive this as an attack, could I stipulate that what you are commenting on is a lack of love that is common among all those who seek to prove their righteousness via ever finer epicycles upon epicycles trying to demonstrate their brilliance? When true believers–some of whom adhere to many different varieties of seemingly incompatible theology–understand that without love the rest is just (attention getting) clashing cymbals.

Kind of cuts around the who’s right part of the discussion and gets us back to whether Jesus would agree with how us joint heirs and members if the (universal) Bride represent HIM.

July 27, 2011 6:01 am

Lydia

“But my dad is a staunch opponent of Calvinism and his very simple explanation why is that they seem focused on the intellectual scheme and promote that scheme instead of first and foremost lifting up Jesus Christ so that he can draw all unto himself.”

This is what worries me. Drawing people to Calvin. Even indirectly by using terms such as Reformed, DOG, etc, which ultimately point to Calvin.

Why even mention his name ever? I am so glad you do not do that when you teach and think it is very wise.

If Calvinism is what Jesus taught, then only mention Jesus and give Him the credit He deserves.

Labels can be helpful (or hindrances) to identify belief. The term “Baptist” is not an idol but helps give people some idea of what I believe. The same with other terms such as dispensationalist, amillennialist, cessationist, continuationist, etc etc. So Calvinism, Reformed, whatever, are labels that help identify what a person believes.

July 27, 2011 4:22 pm

Jason

I don’t know many calvinists that mention Calvin or the term calvinism.

So, I don’t share your fear of him being a idol. In fact, he is rather inconsequential in the scheme of things. His name only comes up in these type of debates, not in sermons or discussions within the church family.

Seriously, go listen to sermons by “calvinists”…see how often they use the term. Rarely, if ever. The only time I hear the term is on blogs and in sermons trying to root out the “evils of calvinism in the SBC”.

July 27, 2011 4:32 pm

Greg Harvey

Ah the continuing joy of my iPhone “deproving” (rather than improving) my diction and spelling. Please read around the more obvious gaffes in that last comment. Teach me to type a long comment with a virtual keyboard!!

I have contemplated over a period of 12 hours whether to enter this comment thread. After seeing my friend volfan getting grief I decided I should not enter, but could not let it rest as I saw the thread continue.

First, I would not assess the Calvinist, old or new, as arrogant. Their position is one that they believe to be clearly held in Scripture. While I would disagree with their positions, I understand their staunch approach. While I do not hold myself up to being an authority on the matter of Scripture I do believe that some scriptures, because of their absoluteness, makes one appear arrogant. I mean when one says there is no other way of salvation but Jesus Christ and base that on John 14:6 then one appears arrogant to a culture that holds tenaciously to pluralism. Thus, I would assess my Calvinist brethren, and sisters, as having strong conviction not arrogant. Suffice it to say that I have seen some within the Calvinist movement that are arrogant as they are more determined to win the argument than they are to convince anyone of anything. Some of those have even commented in this comment thread.

Now, as to my personal encounter with Calvinists I would have to agree with Brother Greg Harvey’s dad concerning my opposition to Calvinism. I want to be careful here because I am not making any accusation and Dave Miller has in the past taken my assessment in this way. I am not calling anyone a moderate. When the Conservative Resurgence was in full mode the conservatives were accused by the moderates as being intellectually lacking and their sermons were merely bible school ignoramus rhetoric. It was charged by the moderates that conservatives were merely appealing to the emotions by giving invitations and were dogmatic because they demanded that people be baptized by immersion. Conservatives complained that moderates did not preach sermons and merely gave talks that only advertised confusing intellectual theories, stopped giving invitations, were accepting people in membership from churches that did not believe in believers baptism by immersion. Well, we certainly have seen the mantra of the new Calvinists have picked up where the moderates left off. Once again, I am not calling anyone a moderate I am merely pointing out the similarities.

Rather than lump the SBC Calvinists in with the Moderates by saying that they have picked up where the Moderates left off, why not conclude that, if two groups as wildly different in their theology as the SBC Calvinistis and the Moderates agree on some weaknesses among SBC non-Calvinists, then there may be some truth in their criticisms. Also, I don’t think that it is true that most SBC Calvinist pastors and churches accept non-baptists into their membership. That may be true of neo-Calvinists generally outside the SBC, but I do not think that it is a fair criticism of those within the SBC.

July 27, 2011 8:44 am

Bill Mac

I think this is an important point. I do believe that Calvinism attracts less emotional, and more intellectually oriented people. It is hard to write that without making it sound like we think non-Calvinists are a collection of emotionally flighty doofuses.

Perhaps we should look at our relationship this way. We balance each other.

One of my best friends is extremely emotional, and not at all prone to thinking things through (although he is not dumb). I think; he reacts. I often say together we make one good Christian. I am the head and he is the heart.

And yes, many of us are distrustful of the altar-call (which is not the same as the invitation) because we see it used so often as a tool to manipulate the emotions.

I am not without emotions, but I express them subtly and do not get worked up over things most people get worked up over. All my Christian life (all SBC) I have been told, not only what I should believe, but how I should feel. The latter kept me pretty defeated for quite a while. Now, I am a Calvinist because I believe it is true, not just because I am comfortable in it, but I will say that in Calvinism I have found a community where I feel like I can fit in and still hold my Baptist convictions.

Bill, your first point is absolutely correct. When I was a Presbyterian (3 different denom’s of them), most all the members I knew were familiar with the Westminster Confession. Since I’ve been a Baptist, I’ve met few members who’ve ever even seen a BF&M, let alone studied it.

What are we Baptists so proud of?

July 27, 2011 12:47 pm

Lydia

“What are we Baptists so proud of?”

I would hope that we focus on scripture and not man made documents.

July 27, 2011 5:02 pm

Jason

Tim,

I think your second paragraph is one worthy of discussion, aside from the linking of mindset to the moderates.

Perhaps a better way to frame that discussion would be around the Charleston and Sandy Creek Associations and their different areas of emphasis as the SBC came together. That would serve better historically and theologically, IMO.

I think it is a valid observation and one worthy of fleshing out a bit.

As someone who would probably come down as a 3.5-4 pointer, I think there is much wisdom that Calvinists can learn from a post like this (as well as from the previous post by William as well).

For starters, coming out guns-blazing at a post like this only serves to show that there’s a reason why there is a stereotype in the SBC of Calvinists being divisive or argumentative or arrogant.

Second, while yes there are some people on a witchhunt for Calvinists (I think of the letter for smoking out a Calvinist circulating in regions of Tennesee…no offense, but I think Association or State employees have no business telling autonomous local churches to fire their pastors), there are others like William who are willing to cooperate as Baptists but have some genuine concerns based on personal experiences with aggressive forms of Calvinism or stealth power grabs under the guise of “elder leadership”. It makes it a lot harder to say, “Calvinists and non-Calvinists can still cooperate under the parameters of BFM” when some are busy taking shots at even those willing to cooperate.

Third, inerrancy and infalliblity are reserved for Scripture, not for our interpretation of Scripture. Is it possible to read the same text and come to very different conclusions? You bet! (If you don’t believe me, you probably aren’t married!) Does that mean both sides are somehow correct? Probably not. Calvinists should not assume that non-Calvinists have never read the Bible, and non-Calvinists should not assume that Calvinists put on special TULIP-shaped glasses to read theirs.

Fourth, the goal of Calvinist and non-Calvinist pastors should not be to conform everyone in their church to their precise view of things. The goal is to conform the sheep to the image of Christ. We should rejoice in faithful, gospel-proclaiming Christians whether or not they join our “tribe” theologically. One of us will find out we were right in heaven, but the point is that we’ll both be there. There’s nothing wrong with pastors teaching their views on these issues, but it should never be an issue of church discipline or arm-twisting to get everyone to agree with you on everything. Major on the majors.

Thanks, William, for providing your experiences. Those of us with Calvinistic leanings should learn from mistakes others have made and from the impressions our tribe may be giving off. After all, as people who believe in Total Depravity, the people most wary of Calvinists should be Calvinists themselves.

July 27, 2011 10:01 am

Jim G.

Well said, Josh.

July 27, 2011 10:18 am

Greg Harvey

I think we all ought to pay to put this on a billboard outside every church:

“Third, inerrancy and infalliblity are reserved for Scripture, not for our interpretation of Scripture.”

July 27, 2011 10:39 am

Smuschany

My question is why, when a Calvinist is involved in a church split/problem, their Calvinism is to blame; BUT in nearly every other case of church split, it is not the (I say psudo because no true Baptist believing in some form of perserverance/OSAS can be a true arminian) but other issues that cause the split?

At seminary I heard stories from godly professors about church splits and fights they have delt with, and you know. Not one of them had to do with whether or not the pastor was Calvinist, or Arminian, or Molinist, or whatever. Generally speaking, most church splits are becasue the pastor for right or wrong reasons, upsets the “old guard” matriarch/patriarch of the church. The “I dont care if we dont have the space, we built this (old) sanctuary and we are not building a new one, and we will fire any pastor that tries to do so”. Or yes, it is the pastor who tries to come in and change the way the church has been doing things for many years. But it has nothing to do with calvinism, or for that matter non-calvinism.

The truth is, for every example that William, or David, or anyone can come up with (if they even try beyond giving vague “I saw it happen”) in a given area regarding a Calvinist causing problems in a church, I can find just as many, if not more cases of church splits and problems that had NOTHING to do with calvinism what so ever.

If you are convinced that the number 42 has meaning, then ever time you see that number you will go “HEY THERE IT IS! SEE ITS IMPORTANT” ignoring the fact that in between those sightings you have seen hundreds if not thousands of other numbers. It only has meaning and frequency because you make it so. Likewise, Calvinists are not more likely to cause church splits than anyone else. BUT because you are looking for those cases, any time you see it happen, you go “THERE IT IS!” ignoring every other split and problem that occurred for other reasons.

July 27, 2011 10:10 am

Jim G.

A person can be an Arminian and believe in eternal security. Wesleyan Arminians believe salvation can be lost, but classical Arminians can believe in eternal security. Arminius himself held to perseverance.

Arminius wrote 5 points (Subsequently, the 5 points of Tulip came in response to the remonsterous). Point 5 was:
“that believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.”
So I believe Jim, you are mistaken.

July 27, 2011 11:37 am

Jim G.

No, Dan,

Arminius did not write any points. He died in 1609, a full nine years before the Synod of Dort. His followers, called the Remonstrants, held to a position where salvation could be lost. Arminius himself never affirmed it was possible to lose salvation. He considered it, but never affirmed either way.

And even in the Remonstrants, point five is that the issue is undecided. They said it is possible that a person might be able to lose salvation, but it wasn’t clear from Scripture, so the Remonstrants said the matter needed further study.

As for Arminius himself, I’m not sure that he ever fully resolved his ambivalence on the matter. Looking at a quote from his writings shortly before his death, he held to a kind of cooperative security, we are kept secure so long as we hold fast, but that it might be possible for those who turn back to the world to fall away. But even on this point Arminius was uncertain. Arminius:

“Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention, [or Synod] to institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual. Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration.”

You will note that I said the same about the relative numbers of church wreckers, but you ask a good question: “Why, when a Calvinist is involved in a church split/problem, their Calvinism is to blame?”

I answered it in my article, [Non-calvinist church wreckers] just don’t hurl themselves headlong into the task out of their doctrinal positions. That’s a bit of a broad generalization but the cases of calvinist church train wrecks I’m familiar with came directly out of the pastor agressively pushing calvinism. I gave examples above.

Other factors are certainly involved – immaturity, personality, and inexperience.

July 27, 2011 10:38 am

Jason

William,

Honest question here….of course almost every church split is a bad thing…but on a scale of things, wouldn’t you rather a church split over doctrinal differences than immaturity, personality, and inexperience?

Now, IMO, virtually no church split is really over doctrine. I also don’t buy that there are an alarming number of churches that have split over calvinism.

Churches that split seem to split because of leadership issues. Either the pastor demands everyone follow him no matter what or deacons/committees/leaders/whatever don’t like to lose any power. It is usually a power play that grabs hold of any sort of footing (doctrinal or otherwise) to justify their position and grab for power. That has been my observation. That means that, in most cases, the church itself is AS RESPONSIBLE for splits as the pastor is…in some cases more responsible.

I don’t see the value of a calvinist pastor splitting a church over his doctrine. I don’t buy the argument, and this is directly from my knowledge and experience with calvinist church wrecks, that a church that is not fully calvinist in doctrine needs to have heresy corrected.

So in answer to your question about rather seeing a church split over doctrine, no. Not if it is over the doctrine of calvinism vs orthodoxy but not calvinism.

July 27, 2011 2:12 pm

Jason

I agree a church should not split over calvinism. I agree with that strongly.

But may I make an observation, perhaps churches that split over calvinism do so because of the unwillingness of one side or the other to bend. It is not always the calvinist pastor’s fault…sometimes it is non-calvinist lay leadership causing the problem. Just an observation. When churches split it is not always the fault of the pastor. Perhaps he was trying to hold it together, but lay leadership got charged up by some outside force and formed a posse to eliminate the pastor. That happens too.

I hope you see my point. Division on this issue is not desirable. But the source of conflict is not always the calvinist’s fault. I know of several churches where calvinist lay people were run out of the church by a non-calvinist pastor. It may not be a church split, but division can come from both sides.

True?

(Side note: I would love some specific examples of these “calvinist church wrecks”. It’d be interesting to examine how things went down.)

July 27, 2011 3:10 pm

Jim G.

I do want to comment on one of William’s points: the point of arrogance.

Let me say first that I believe every Christian should proclaim what they believe with conviction. But conviction should never override love for a fellow believer. We have liberty in Christ, but we may not use that liberty as an occasion for others to stumble.

Chris has said above that the nature of belief that he (or anyone else) is right necessarily entails that the opponent is wrong. Of course, he is correct here. Where I think arrogance comes in (and this is not directed at Chris in particular, but to all of us, me included) is not seeing that the opponent has a valid point – and not realizing that the opponent’s valid point is a different take on our own valid point. Let me illustrate.

Calvinism (C) and Arminianism (A) – I’ll use A rather than non-C – both construct a biblically-based theology. They start in different places. C majors primarily (though not exclusively) on the greatness of God, while A majors primarily on the goodness of God. We all agree that God is both great and good. Do C’s believe in the goodness of God? Absolutely! Do A’s believe in the greatness of God? You betcha! This is a little oversimplified, but C’s tend to see goodness through the lens of greatness, while A’s tend to see greatness through the lens of goodness.

It is really, really hard for us to balance goodness and greatness in our view of God. God, of course, does it perfectly; but we tend to have some problems. I think if we are charitable toward the opposite side on this issue, realizing that our way we view God is largely responsible for the difference, we can eliminate some of the arrogance that happens on both sides. We can still be convinced we are seeing things correctly, but we can know our opponents have a valid point too.

I fully admit that I tend to view God’s greatness through the lens of his goodness. That is why the Calvinist doctrines have less appeal to me. But I also have come to realize that those who view goodness through greatness will result in the 5 points (the 3 points that are really in contention) being seen more favorably.

I’m trying to use a bee-smoker rather than Raid on the hornet’s nest. :0)

Jim, you stated that both Calvinism and Arminianism construct a “a biblically-based theology”. Arminianism is based on Pelagianism, both Arminianism and Pelagianism have been declared Heresy buy two separate councils on two separate occasions. I am ok with “non-Calvinists”, because most of the time, they affirm depravity and eternal security, but I can not agree that Arminianism is a “biblically based theology”.

July 27, 2011 11:47 am

Jim G.

Whoa, Dan,

You do not understand Arminianism. It affirms total depravity and can (but does not always) affirm security. Arminius was a student of Calvin’s prime pupil Theodore Beza.

Saying Arminianism is based on Pelagianism is a gross historical inaccuracy. I don’t know where you heard that, but whoever told you did not tell you the truth. Arminianism was “condemned” by the Synod of Dort, which was a synod of Dutch church leaders who had a lot invested in keeping a united church to keep Holland from being annexed by the King of Spain. It was as political as it was theological.

No arguments that Pelagianism is a heresy. But Arminianism begins with grace. And it is a biblically-based theology, unless you are willing to call every Arminian for the past 400 years a heretic. Not very many are willing to do so.

I have read the works of Arminius, and I’ll give you that you can make a weak argument from depravety, that is someone trumped by prevenient grace, but the logical outcome of Arminan theology minimalized total depravity. As for eternal security,

Article V — That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand; and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the word of Christ, John x. 28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before they can teach it with the full persuasion of their minds.

July 27, 2011 12:38 pm

Jason

Jim,

Would you agree that the average person in our SBC churches is, by default, a semi-pelagian more than an arminian?

I would love to get your thoughts on this.

July 27, 2011 12:45 pm

Jim G.

Hi Jason,

I cannot in good conscience speak one way or the other with any sense of surety. I think it is quite possible that in many churches people tend to hold what I call the “American folk religion,” which uses Christian verbiage but is very semi- or fully Pelagian. I think the problem goes much deeper than the SBC. It is present in at least every church touched by the revivalism of the 19th century. And we know that movement was spearheaded by the prince of semi-Pelagians, C. G. Finney. You may very well be right.

“I have actually seen non-Calvinists disagree with quotes by Arminius because they thought it was too Calvinistic.”

This is something that surprised me about Arminius when I read some of his works. He (and the Remonstrants) is much closer to Calvinism than to Pelagianism. There are some related implications, yes, so some comparisons are valid, but to absolutely relate the two is not valid.

But I’m still trying to determine how anything you say deals with arrogance. Just because I disagree with someone doesn’t mean I’m not listening. I know where the non-Calvinist argument comes from. I understand it. I am very familiar with the biblical argument for the non-Calvinist position. But I still disagree with it. There are many true things that non-Calvinists say and on those points I will voice agreement and appreciation. Even on the issue of soteriology, non-Calvinists say many true things and for that I am grateful. But on the issue of divine sovereignty over election and man’s utter inability in salvation, non-Calvinists are wrong. I cannot concede any valid point to wrong beliefs. There is nothing arrogant about that, it is simply part of the nature of belief. I will absolutely agree with you that God is good but this doesn’t lessen the fact that you are wrong on other matters.

The model I like to see is of believers robust enough both in faith and unity that we can have a knock-down-drag-out fight over theology and still walk away friends. Rich Mullins once said that Jesus is the guy who bloodies your nose then gives you a ride home on his bike. That’s along the lines of what I have in mind. Firm conviction, expressed with clarity, candor, boldness, and respect – with respect meaning we respect the right of others to disagree, to hold their own opinions, even if they are wrong.

I believe Calvinists and non-Calvinists can get along in the SBC. I believe we *should* get along. But getting along does not mean hiding our convictions for the sake of unity. When Calvinists are called arrogant, I think what is meant is Calvinists dare to disagree and we don’t like people disagreeing so we call it arrogance and divisive. But what a picture would it be to the world if they see a people who disagree and yet manage to love one another even in the midst of such disagreements.

July 27, 2011 2:53 pm

Jim G.

I agree, Chris. The arrogance only happens when we fail to see our own blind spots and/or think our position does not have weaknesses. I am all for holding one’s position with conviction. And I am all for backing it up and arguing it with clarity and passion. But if we cannot do it in love and embrace one another as brothers at the end, we have a worse problem than who is right or wrong.

July 27, 2011 11:05 pm

Jason

Agreed.

The most disappointing thing to me is that there are some in the SBC that want to kick out (smoke out) all of the calvinists. It’s time for us to admit that there is room for both in the SBC.

July 27, 2011 11:28 pm

Christiane

Problem: I cannot understand ‘sin nature’ and ‘total depravity’ because of the teachings of my Church about the Incarnation.

How does Calvinism and Arminianism reconcile the doctrine of the Incarnation with the doctrine of ‘the total depravity of human nature’ ? Or is the Doctrine of the Incarnation not understood in the same way that Catholics and the Orthodox understand it ?

This is just one area where I can’t get a handle on understanding,
and I thought I would ask for more specific insight from those who know more about this from the Calvinist and Arminian points of view.
Thanks, if anyone can help.

Classical Arminianism agrees with Calvinism about human nature and total depravity – that is, we are all born guilty of sin with a corrupt nature that inclines us wholly to sin.

The difference from there is that classical Arminians believe in prevenient grace whereby God elevates all people out of their state of total corruption, enabling all people to make a free-will choice to either accept or reject the grace of Christ.

The Calvinist position (my position) is that while Scripture says much about the depravity of man, it says nothing about a universal awakening, elevating, or prevenient grace that lifts all men partly out of corruption.

As for the incarnation, there have been various responses to this. One of the more common, and where I lean, is that Jesus being the Son of God, without a human father, did not inherit a corrupt nature.

July 27, 2011 3:00 pm

John Wylie

John 12:32 “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.”

July 28, 2011 8:32 am

Jim G.

Hi Christiane,

Chris is correct in his explanation of Calvinist and Arminian idea of original sin. But evangelical Protestants (EP) do see the incarnation a little differently than the EO, but very similar to the RCC (using abbreviations to save space).

The RCC holds to baptismal regeneration, which affirms that original sin (sin inherited all the way back from Adam) is negated at baptism.

EO, in my opinion, holds to a much higher view of the incarnation than the RCC or EP. They believe, following Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria, that the incarnation wrought a fundamental change in humanity, which allows the capability to turn toward God. It is the same basis from which the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace has its roots although, due to the fundamental change wrought in the incarnation, I doubt the EO will subscribe to any notion of total depravity.

The RCC holds this view too, but it is not quite as pronounced as EO. Part of the reason is that the EO follows the (Greek) Eastern Fathers (the aforementioned Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Cyril) while the RCC follows the (Latin) Western Fathers (Tertullian and Augustine). I think recent writings by Rahner and Kung sound more EO than RCC at times.

I hope this helps.

Jim G.

July 28, 2011 4:49 pm

Christiane

Thank you, Jim G.

Yes, it makes sense to me because I am looking at Calvinism through the Incarnation teachings of both eastern and western orthodoxy (EO and Catholic);
so no wonder I have difficulty comprehending it.

The EO definitely place the Incarnation up there along side of the Redemption and the Resurrection in importance to our salvation.

And this also explains why the Incarnation is not as much of a part of the teachings of evangelical Baptists.

I owe you, Jim. You have helped again. Thanks. 🙂

July 28, 2011 5:15 pm

Jim G.

Hi Christiane,

The incarnation is a much-neglected doctrine in evangelical Protestantism, I’m sorry to say. I’m working on a project now that frames the doctrine of atonement on the incarnation as well as the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus did much more than “live to die, rejected and alone” as the popular contemporary hymn goes. In my opinion, we could learn a lot from the EO and even more from the Fathers they follow.

Interesting perspectives, but as a non-SBC guy, I wonder how much of what you have experienced is “Calvinism in the SBC” and not “Calvinism in general”? Personally, I have never seen the “Calvinist pastor takes over a church, and installs elders to create a good ‘ol boys club” (and I have seen a lot of Calvinist pastors). I have seen Calvinist pastors gather groups of people together to talk through the aspects of church governance. I have seen Calvinist pastors approach expositional sermons on Romans 8 and 9 with great care and humility. In fact, I have seen the exact opposite of what you have seen. But, then again, these were non-SBC churches.

In search committees, every pastor we interviewed was more than open about his soteriology. We just didn’t seem to get the “stealth cage stage Calvinists” applying for pastor positions. Again, non-SBC.

I do admit that Calvinists can be arrogant. But, I also have had an equal experience with non-Calvinists who are arrogant, so that is a wash for me. In fact, my first exposure to Christianity was when an anti-Calvinist (not just non-, he was anti-) friend of mine challenged a Calvinist friend of mine about his salvation because he couldn’t remember the time and place where he was saved – and he blamed it on Calvinism.

Maybe the title of these posts should be “Why I’m Wary of Christians” and “3 Things I like about Christians” 🙂 since I don’t really think either “side” has a corner on any of those markets.

I think a lot of this “SBC Calvinist” issue is a bogeyman. I’m sure people have had run-ins with random guys. But it has been my experience that the “SBC Calvinist” is by-in-large a normal pastor, with a normal agenda, and a desire to be thoughtful and careful and faithful as a Pastor.

I simply have not met the bogeyman that people always say runs rampant among the SBC.

Your first two points can be said easily about non-calvinists as well. Your third point isnt even a real point. Churches ask that you hold to the BFM, which Calvinists do. No one fully discloses every single theological point.

July 27, 2011 12:27 pm

Jason

This issue of search committees and being forthcoming in interviews is an interesting one.

I believe in being forthcoming. I believe one must answer every question honestly and openly. To do otherwise would be unfitting of a pastor. But there are a few issues here worthy of note:

1. Church committees don’t know the right questions to ask
2. If no one asks about the issue, can you assume it is a non-issue in the church?
3. Ironically, if a calvinist were to bring it up, I’m sure many would accuse him of trying to insert it into any discussion and making it a “big deal”.
4. Terminology is key on this issue. Some of the things described by some on here as “calvinism” I would strongly deny. So, I would not affirm or deny anything without a chance to define, describe, and detail exactly what I mean.
5. One can be forthcoming about their views on this issue without using the term “calvinism” which carries much baggage. I don’t call myself a calvinist, nor do I use the term (except on here). I doubt my church will ever hear me say that word. So, “full disclosure” is about an issue, not terminology.
6. The vast majority of churches simply do not understand this issue and are ill-equipped to deal with it.
7. Many churches have had the well poisoned because of various DOMs and letters/CDs sent out decrying the evils of calvinism. Though they don’t know what it is, all they know is “calvinism=bad”.
8. The sheer fact that someone is a calvinist does not show anything about their evangelistic zeal, their passion in preaching, their ability to lead, etc.
9. If it is a minor issue…must every minor issue be addressed in the interview process? Valid question, IMO.

Thanks for your reply. I have several people who find it amazing that I am passionate about Evangelism, even wrote a book on Evangelism. I affirm man’s responsibility, and I affirm the necessity to preach the gospel. I also affirm the doctrines of Grace (I am not a fan of the 5 points, so I don’t claim to be a “5 point Calvinist”). What I get accused of is “not believing in Evangelism” which clearly isn’t true. I really liked your point that the word Calvinist doesn’t always communicate what a person’s theology is, there are so many conceptions, preconceptions and misconceptions (and blogs like this just add fuel to the fire).

Also, to not oppose acts of circulating things to “smoke out Calvinist pastors” is pathetic on your part. If they have to be “smoked out” it means they arent up there trying to take over their churches to convert them to Calvinism. Pastors were fired, when before that their members didnt even realize they were calvinists!

See if I can grasp what you wrote? I am not looking to vent about anything, and yes I actually read it. I have 0 desire to get into a what I said vs what I meant argument, but your statement of “I didn’t call a group of people arrogant and the destroyer of churches” makes me wonder if you grasp what you wrote.

OK again, Matt, I’m pathetic because I did not oppose the ‘smoke out guide’? How do you know? Can you show me where I condoned that?

What I said about the smoke out guides (on Mar 7, 2010) was this: “I find Tom Ascol to be one of the more reasoned and moderate voices for calvinists on this type stuff. He and others wisely call for some self-examination, recognizing that there is a basis for churches being wary of calvinists.”

Do you find Tom Ascol to be pathetic, or obnoxious because he calls form some self-examination by his calvinist colleagues?

“Why is it that some circulate ‘calvinist smoke-out guides’ or why have some churches cut funding to calvinist SBC institutions? Are those who so act evil, misguided, or alarmist? Perhaps there is something concrete and important behind these acts.”

At the least, you spoke with understanding, if not defense, of the practice of smoking out Calvinists in the SBC.

As I noted in my original comment way up above, which group is divisive in this? Which group is actively warning churches of the SBC against a particular brand of theology and providing tools to those churches for how to find such theology so they can remove it?

I will be the first to admit there are some obnoxious Calvinists out there, but I am not sure a post such as this is helpful, in fact it seems to be causing more division. I have been told “you Calvinists are all alike”, and it hurts when a fellow believer marginalizes you because he assumes he knows your theology becomes of someone else. Why can’t we all just get along?

That is what I’m saying William. I would prefer you to attack my theology, instead you are just attacking me. We can discuss theology, it’s debatable, but instead you just took shots at people. Theology is debatable, he worth of people is not.

From reading the blog, it seems that you simply stated that if I hold to Calvinistic teachings, then I am arrogant, stealthy and a church wrecker. The whole point is you are wary of Calvinists, but you praise God if we happen to preach Christ. Not a whole lot of love for an entire group of people.

July 27, 2011 3:12 pm

Jason

William,

Dan is addressing the fact that you said that calvinists who post on message boards lack a modicum of humility. That was a personal shot.

This whole discussion is a page from our SBC History… This discussion might have had relevance five years ago… But today the last thing Calvinist Pastors in the SBC want to do is come to your “Traditional Baptist Church” and mount a sneak attack.

In case you have not noticed, all of this attacking and rejecting of Calvinist Pastors in the SBC has had the unintended effect of creating a generation of Passionate Evangelical Calvinist that are committed to missions and church planting.

So I want to say a personal “Thank You” to all the Anti-Calvinist out there for sending out all your “Smoke Calvinist Out” Guides… You have played a very large role in motivating one the the greatest missionary movements in all of Church History!

I remember a story Paul Washer told in one of his sermons a while back about this very thing. He was out to dinner with a group of ministry guys (All Calvinists) and when the waiter came to get their order, he saw Paul’s bible. The waiter, with his gelled punk like hair, earrings, etc, got real excited and told Paul how he “found” Jesus and how he had searched and searched and finally “found” Jesus. He was one excited young guy.

Paul noticed the stoic faces around the table because obviously the waiter was using all Free will type of language. Paul later admonished them, saying in effect, that he would take one excited Free will waiter, using the wrong doctrinal words for his conversion, over 20 Calvinists. :o)

Look at this video again Lydia, because I agree with Paul Washer on this, but not in the way you are.

July 28, 2011 10:13 am

volfan007

The churches I personally know of…where a 5 pt. CALVINIST went in as Pastor….unknown to the church…caused strife and division in those churches directly related to his CALVINISTS beliefs. I know of Churches where they balked at doing away with the Deacon body, in order to have an Elder board…..I know of a church where the Student Pastor was actively trying to convert the youth to 5 pt. CALVINISM…very blatantly ….and when the youth complained to their parents, then it caused a lot of uproar and problems in that church. I know of 3 other churches…fairly large ones, too…where the 5 pt. CALVINIST Pastors came in, and started teaching 5 pt. CALVINISM…no, I know of 4 large churches in my area…and it caused much strife and division…in every one of these churches, the 5 pt. CALVINIST pastor was asked to leave…and these were good, sound, Bible believing Churches…everyone of them.

Now, do you want to hear about the church in Fayette Co. that went thru strife and division and a church melt down, due to a 5 pointer coming in…proclaiming 5 pointism? Do you want to hear about the church in NW MS that I know about….similar problem? Do you want to hear about all the other ones that I personally know of?

So, please dont tell me what I know, or do not know about churches being hurt(strife and division), or actually being split, over a 5 pointer coming in and trying to convert the churches to 5 point CALVINISM. I can give you the names of the churches… the towns and cities….names of the Pastors, etc.

And, Debbie, and no, I’m not lying. God knows that I’m telling the truth….whether you believe me, or not. And, you’re lying about me not telling the truth at other times. You’re lying and need to repent of your false accusations.

Sounds more like churches that had trouble with Calvinism than Calvinist pastors causing problems. Back to my claim, the problem in the SBC is not Calvinism, per se, but that many in the SBC want nothing to do with Calvinism.

July 27, 2011 4:24 pm

volfan007

Chris,

The problem was with both….the 5 pt. Calvinist Pastor teaching Calvinism. I’m not quite sure what the purpose is in trying to divide the 2…if that’s what caused the problem…his teaching 5 pt Calvinism,and trying to lead the church to become a Calvinist church.

David

July 27, 2011 4:27 pm

Jason

The funny thing is that if a non-calvinist pastor went in there and tried to get them to change something structurally, and they revolted (as many do) – the assumption would not be that hsi theology had anything to do with it…or that he was even to blame at all. The people in the church would be considered “hard-hearted” and “stubborn” and “unwilling to follow the man God led there”….but on this issue, it all changes.

July 27, 2011 4:29 pm

volfan007

Jason,

In most of these churches, they had changed many things. It was not about changing something. It was clearly about Calvinism, and the Pastor not letting them know who he was right from the beginning.

I’m beginning to think that yall dont want to see this….that it’s something you’re just gonna deny no matter what evidence is brought forth. Are you? Are you that closed minded to seeing the truth, here?

July 27, 2011 4:33 pm

Jason

The question is, did they split/have problems over the teaching of calvinism or because of other reasons, and the guy in charge was a calvinist? How do you know you got the whole story? I have seen churches split and you poll 5 people in the church and you’ll get 5 different reasons as for the split. Certainly your bias against calvinism leads you to read that into equation, present or not…consciously or not.

I would love to hear the specific church names, because I am thinking about doing a little research on this issue and would love to talk with some churches who have gone through splits on this issue. I may work this into my doctoral thesis, if I can.

July 27, 2011 4:26 pm

volfan007

Jason,

The strife and division was over the Pastor teaching Calvinism, and trying to convert them to a Calvinist Church. I have a friend right now, who’s going thru bad problems at his Church; because he’s trying to make them become an Acts 29 type church…

But, the problem with every church that I talked about above, was clearly the teaching of Calvinism, and trying to make the churches fit that mold…

It wasnt personal problems with the Pastor….it wasnt other things, and the guy just happened to be a 5 pt. Calvinist. It was clearly over the Calvinism.

July 27, 2011 4:30 pm

Jason

From your perspective…”it was clearly over calvinism”. I’d imagine there are multiple perspectives in a church split…there usually are.

I’m particularly curious about the church that wanted to get rid of deacons to replace them with elders. Most who promote elders also promote deacons – that the deacons are there to serve the church while elders are to lead the church. I’m not all that familiar with churches who believe we should have elders instead of deacons.

July 27, 2011 4:32 pm

volfan007

Chris,

I personally know of some.

David

July 27, 2011 4:34 pm

Jason

Never heard of that either, Chris.

July 27, 2011 4:36 pm

bill

People aren’t being forthcoming in their committee interviews?

No…

July 27, 2011 4:42 pm

volfan007

Jason,

I can give you the names of the churches. I really dont feel comfortable doing this. I know people in some of these churches fairly well, and I do not want to end up in the middle of something. I have a good relationship with them. I want to keep it that way.

One of the churches was a church that I used to belong to…another one, my brother and his family belonged to it…another one, a good friend of mine belonged to it….and, all the other ones I knew people, who went there, etc. I know the man, who wrote the smoking out Calvinists pastors…now. Now, I know him, and I know who he is….I didnt know for a long time. But, one of the reasons he wrote that was because of the same churches that I’m telling you about…..to keep other churches from going thru the same thing…the same strife…the same division…

He was doing it as a way to warn these churches, before they called a Pastor, to make sure that they were not getting an undercover CAlVINIST pastor, who would try to convert them.

Perhaps I’m just silly but why if Calvinists are the minority (and we are) and if Calvinism is bad (which apparently it is) does this brother have to be undercover in spreading this “smoking out Calvinists” article?

July 27, 2011 7:04 pm

volfan007

He just wants to warn churches, who are not 5 pt. CALVINIST, to know how to spot one…one who may not be telling them what he is during the interview process of looking for a new pastor.

Why he’s undercover…I dont know. But, that’s up to him whether to tell who he is, or not.

Just for the record, I know of a thriving church in my general area that was torn apart by a Calvinist pastor. That church no longer exists. Not saying all Calvinists are that way, but some are.
David R. Brumbelow

July 27, 2011 7:12 pm

Jason

More anecdotes.

I know several churches torn apart in my area by non-calvinists.

My church has had several splits…all caused by non-calvinists.

Now what?

July 27, 2011 9:06 pm

Christiane

I don’t think that the spirit of ‘divisiveness’ is something that can be laid at the feet of Calvinists OR non-Calvinists in isolation.
I think that the spirit of ‘divisiveness’ is due to pride, that ‘mother of all sins’;
and one of the most bitter of the fruits of pride is ‘arrogance’.

If Calvinists and non-Calvinists wish to remain Christian brothers and sisters, they must maintain open respect for the sincerity of one anothers points of view;
and they must avoid being ‘prideful’ in the way that leads to the contention that divides the community and weakens it.

I believe Tom Ascol had some thoughtful and helpful articles to young calvinists who were going into the pastorate. Perhaps someone can look them up. I feel sure Ascol will get a better hearing on this than me.

Just for the record… I have some anecdotes of my own I would like to put out here.

I know of several churches in my area that were torn apart (I mean literally destroyed by Not-a-5-Point-Calvinist types)… these churches went out on a limb and built big building to match the big egos of their Not-a-5-Point-Calvinist pastor only to have him cause division and bust the church before moving on.

But these stores have a happy ending… after the Not-a-5-Point-Calvinist left the church busted guess who came in and put them back together? That’s right, A-5-Point-Calvinist. I have saw this happen over and over… and I was just wondering if anyone else has saw this as well???

Does anyone else have a story about a 5-Point-Calvinist healing a church instead of destroying a church?

July 27, 2011 10:01 pm

volfan007

And, once again, you dodge the fact that there are some 5 pointers, who go into churches…undercover….and it ends bad…all due to their 5 pt. Calvinism…

I also know of many churches that have been torn up by non 5 pt. calvinists…for a host of reasons. But, that doesnt change the fact that some 5 pt. CALVINISTs go into churches to convert them, and end up causing major strife and division.

How about you David-007??? You appear to have your ear to the ground concerning what 5-Point-Calvinist are doing to our churches in the SBC… ever hear of a Calvinist actually do a good job of restoring a broken church?

That’s odd… as often as it has happened here in NW Florida I would think you must have heard of at least one? O well, I guess sometimes we only see (or hear) what we want to see.

July 27, 2011 10:20 pm

volfan007

Greg,

Why would I know anything that’s happened in NW Florida? I live in W. TN. Dude, I would imagine that there are some churches in many states where what you said is true. OK. And? What’s that got to do with what I’ve been saying about the churches I know of…with a totally different story?

I was not asking if you knew of any churches in NW Florida that have benefited from a Calvinist Pastor… I was asking if you might know of any churches in the great state of Tennessee that have benefited from a Calvinist Pastor.

What’s this got to do with what you’v been saying… Well, seeing as I am sure you would never want to be accused of not telling the whole story about the influence and effect Calvinist Pastors are having in the SBC… I think it has everything to do with what you have been saying.

Fair & Balanced!!! … … That the Volfan007 I know 🙂

July 28, 2011 8:08 pm

Jason

What a shock…David only sees the bad in calvinists.

That is the kind of bias that we are talking about.
That is arrogance.
That is an unloving spirit.

I am convinced that non-calvinists care more about calvinism than calvinists.
THEY are the ones making it a big deal, not calvinists.

July 27, 2011 11:11 pm

volfan007

Jason,

I was simply responding to a question from Greg. I’m sorry, but I didnt know…off the top of my head…of any churches that were having big troubles and dying, where a 5 pt. Calvinist pastor came in and helped them grow and become healthy.

Jason, Man, why would you go off on me for simply stating what I know, and dont know?

Greg, one Calvinist comes to mind who was called by the congregation after he was upfront with them about his positions. I believe the congregation had around 80 and wasn’t very healthy. Today, they have a few campuses and around 4000 members if I recall correctly. His name is Matt Chandler.

Mark Dever is another who comes to mind. Capitol Hill had dwindled to around 100 people when Dever was called. The Lord used him to revive the church.

J.D. Greear would be another one. And Acts 29 does a lot of replants and revitalization of struggling churches though I don’t know any numbers.

I’m not sure if John Piper would count or not, but when he took about half the members were 65 or older with not much growth (I think).

July 27, 2011 10:47 pm

volfan007

A friend of mine is in the hot seat right now…in big trouble… for trying to “revitalize” a church in the Acts 29 way. The church erupted….is full of strife and division right now. I really dont see how my frriend is gonna make it.

And, yes, Greg Alford and Debbie, did you notice I said a friend of mine?

Does your friends situation negate all of the healthy Acts 29 church revitalizations that have taken place? Is your friends situation the exception or the rule?

No matter what anyone says you always seem to have an example which for some reason is allowed to override all others.

July 28, 2011 9:35 am

Debbie Kaufman

And David, they are “examples” that I am just not buying. It seems for every good story you have five bad ones that have no corroboration. That is my point, you have no written proof that any of this happened. I rely on proof not just stories. It can be proven that these men grew churches. It can be seen. It’s just bad form to not offer any proof to these serious accusations.

July 28, 2011 10:11 am

Lydia

That would mean Saddleback and Lakewood are really more doctrinally correct than either of those two. Since you are measuring the spiritual by numbers.

July 27, 2011 11:51 pm

Jason

To be fair, Lydia, he is using the criteria previously set up to determine that Calvinist churches are destructive.

Context, context, context.

July 28, 2011 12:12 am

Lydia

‘To be fair, Lydia, he is using the criteria previously set up to determine that Calvinist churches are destructive.”

No, The context was that the Calvinist was subversive with Calvinism to get the job .

Why not put Calvinist on the CV? I don’t get it…

July 28, 2011 12:23 am

Lydia

The Calvinist church would want to be Calvinist. That is not the destructive part. The destructive part is when someone does not make it clear up front they want to turn the church into a Calvinist one.

BTW: Does anyone happen to know if Kevin Ezell is a Calvinist?

July 28, 2011 12:29 am

Jason

Wrong….he was responding to Greg. Go back and read Greg’s post about calvinist’s restoring churches…which in turn was part of a larger discussion which started with comments about calvinists going in and destroying churches, where cutting attendance was one of the factors cited.

July 28, 2011 12:32 am

Jason

Everyone should be up front with their beliefs. That isn’t a question.

I just think that is a convenient accusation to make (lying in the interview), when it may not be accurate. Maybe a pastor made clear what he believed, but the search committee didn’t understand it. This is not an issue with which many lay people are familiar.

The whole “calvinists lie in interviews” thing is a weak accusation. Unverifiable, for one thing…which makes it a great cheap shot accusation. But it also ignores several weak aspects of the search process which could lead to confusion on the part of the church.

I wonder why you fellows don’t realize that every one of the doctrines of the tulip acrostic is an invitation, the most intense, moving, motivating, attractive, wonderful marvelous, drawing, compelling in the freest sense of the word? Have you all ever read the applications and exhortations to faith that the Puritans made much of in the conclusions of their messages? And why not the courtesty that I Cors.13 inculcates?

July 27, 2011 11:07 pm

Lydia

“Wrong….he was responding to Greg. Go back and read Greg’s post about calvinist’s restoring churches…which in turn was part of a larger discussion which started with comments about calvinists going in and destroying churches, where cutting attendance was one of the factors cited.”

Jason, I do so love logic. “Cutting attendance” as you term it, happens when a church splits for any reason. And this was in the context of the overarching discussion which Volfan brought up concerning subversive Calvinists. These would be churches that would have liked to be told up front the person was a Calvinist.

This is something different than a dying church bringing in a Calvinists who grows the numbers…. which Greg was saying to counter Volfan.

They are two totally different situations.

In effect, they are talking about different things. In any event, I am not convinced Chandler, Grear or Driscoll built huge followings due to Calvinism. I think there are other characteristics involved. But that is just me. Could be the Calvinism. People do love following humans.

July 28, 2011 9:31 am

Debbie Kaufman

Lydia: Why do you go to church?

July 28, 2011 9:57 am

Lydia

Debbie, I would first need to understand what you mean by “church”. But then, that would be derailing the blog thread which I would rather not do.

In effect, they are talking about different things. In any event, I am not convinced Chandler, Grear or Driscoll built huge followings due to Calvinism.

Wright or wrong that wasn’t in the scope of Greg’s question as I read it. He was asking about Calvinists themselves restoring broken churches not about whether it was the Calvinism.

July 28, 2011 9:39 am

Lydia

“Wright or wrong that wasn’t in the scope of Greg’s question as I read it. He was asking about Calvinists themselves restoring broken churches not about whether it was the Calvinism.”

Mark,

???

Greg brought up Calvinists restoring broken churches to counter Volfan’s point that he knows secret Calvinist who have split churches.

Those are two different topics. One does not negate the other.

Calvinism is the blog post topic. And I am not sure how we can seperate the Calvinism from the Calvinist. However, I will conceed that it was probably not Calvinism that was the big draw to these restored and now quasi-mega churches who have Calvinists as the pastor. It was more likely the person who drew them. Cult of personality… as these are very charismatic young men. Driscoll, Chandler and Grear.

How could it not be in the scope of Greg’s question since he was pointing out “Calvinists” who restored broken churches to counter Volfans claim that secret Calvinists have split some churches.

I am not anti Calvinist. In fact, I am probably at 4 pts. But I see so many logical fallacies bandied about here, it makes me dizzy. All in order to frame the debate. Part of the problem is that indoctrination keeps one from learning how to think. It has nothing to do with being pro or con Calvinist. It is the fact that Greg’s point does not negate Volfan’s point.

But it does give William’s blog post some street cred.

Back to the larger blog post topic, William was giving an “opinion” of why “he” is wary of Calvinists. Instead of defending Calvin and Calvinists, why not heed it and ask why a brother would think this way? Isn’t that what you guys are paid to do as pastors? :o)

There are primarily two things I like about ‘most’ Calvinists (1) they are willing to upohold the tension readily apparent in scripture that teachs BOTH divine sovereignty in salvation AND human responsibility (2) they are willing to prefer and uphold God’s glory above man’s in the doctrines of grace.

I’ve always resolved this tension in my mind simply, by following an adage I came up with some years ago that says, “When in doubt- give God the credit.” I can’t hink of a more firm theological foundation to stand on than that. Can you?

Bernie, I’m of Northern European extraction, not Armenian, although I have some sympathies with their plight, particularly the Turkish Armenians.

I haven’t argued anything about Calvinist doctrine.

July 28, 2011 10:18 am

Debbie Kaufman

And why aren’t you William? That has me very curious. Why personal attacks?

Calvinism is in a nutshell teaching God’s Sovereignty in everything and that God does salvation from beginning to end.

It is a “I’m lost and I can’t save myself and if God condemned me right now he would be just in doing so.” It is seeing a Holy God and how next to that Holiness just how wicked we are.

Calvinism teaches that when we hear the word of God we are struck into silence at the Holiness and Majesty and wonderfulness of God. We are struck silent at our sin which is so vile and wicked and like dung.

The question is: How do you know you believe? The demons believe. It’s not do we know Him? It’s does He know you? The answer from my view of reading scripture is are you a new creation? A whole new person? Paul says in 2 Corinthians 2:17

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

Salvation isn’t about walking an aisle and saying a few words asking Christ into their heart,It’s much more and it’s done by God from beginning to end. That is the doctrine of Calvinism.

Debbie, with all respect and kindness, you said “I don’t believe there is any viable argument against any Calviist (sic) tenets.”

In that sentence you have ruled out any possibility that you could be wrong, mistaken, or uninformed. You have eliminated the possibility that you have misunderstood or have failed to properly interpret Scripture. You indicate that there is nothing that you do not now know, that you have not read, that you have yet to be exposed to, that may be brought to the discussion.

What possible reason would there be to have such a discussion with you?

July 28, 2011 12:28 pm

Debbie Kaufman

William: I still believe that. If you aren’t out of change me we can still discuss. I am pretty open on what I believe. I think the problem is what the documents show that were used to “smoke out Calvinist preachers”. They are full of error on what Calvinism is. On what Calvinists believe. Once we lay out what we believe, there may be objection, but at least it is based on truth.

I was not always a Calvinist, but I have always been Baptist, so I do know both views as most of us do. Most of us were not Calvinists until adulthood. Christianity is a thinking theology, I think we both would agree on that. I would discuss to better understand each other. That is where the problem lies in my opinion. Rumor proceeds truth of what Calvinists believe. Rumor proceeds what you probably believe. It’s never an unhealthy thing unless we try and convert each other instead of pointing to scripture or Christ.

I appreciate your comment but if you’re forever settled in your convictions I don’t see the point. I’ve had enough discussions with calvinists, some reasonable, some not, for this lifetime. And, since we won’t be discussing calvinism in heaven 😉 that should be enough.

On the opposition to calvinists being misguided, ignorant of what calvinism really is, that may be true to an extent; however, the universe of self-proclaimed calvinists (or doctrines of gracers) includes those who have preached, taught, and practiced all the caricatures. You cannot eliminate them from this discussion.

I’d conjecture that the lethal form of calvinism in churches, stuff that several of us have offered anecdotes on, is geographically scattered. I take your word that you aren’t familiar with such things. Unless you think all of us are manufacturing this stuff, why not accept them and consider how these may have affected our view of calvinists?

I’d think that if a man (or woman) from Mars showed up last week and read both my pieces here on calvinists, they would think I was pretty balanced about it.

July 28, 2011 2:29 pm

Debbie Kaufman

William: You are going to think me stiff necked and I am on this subject. I can’t accept as truth that which I believe to be untrue. I say this with all sincerity. On such matters I am not just issuing words when I say I believe iron clad proof. I see none. You ought to know by now that Southern Baptists are not always truth tellers. That has been the problem in our denomination as a matter of fact. I cannot accept something based on anecdotes. I know what that sounds like, but I am being honest here. I also cannot stay silent and let it be told without challenging it and stay true to my conscience. I have seen too much I want them out so I’ll say anything to do it, true or not mentality in the past few years. It works for the Gossip magazines, it has worked for Luella Parsons who when she wanted to destroy a star would write lies and horrible gossip, people believed it and bam a person was destroyed. It worked for the McCarthy era and Communism, and it works in churches. That is why it is done, evil as it is. It works.

Look, I understand your desire for proof. I don’t feel free to give names, church names, dates on this. While I would prefer that you simply say, ‘I’m reserving judgment until I get more concrete details,’ or somethign like that rather than offering that ‘Southern Baptists aren’t always truth tellers’ which might imply I’m among them, fine. I surmise that you simply haven’t been around any such situations. They exist and are pretty much as David and I have described.

I don’t know that I’ve ever been put in the same post as Joe McCarthy and Louella Parsons, but, well, I’ll try to cope.

I would commend you if you were defending your pastor against undefined and uncorroborated rumors and gossip, and I’d want you on my side. In this though you are at a disadvantage, since the scenario I and others describe is significant.

May I put you in the same sentence as Scarlett O’Hara with ‘I can’t think of [calvinist church wreckers] right now…’ She added, ‘I’ll think about that tomorrow.’

I have given you example after example of churches that I know personally, where a 5 pt. CALVINIST Pastor came in, and tore the church up over CALVINISM. I know this was the cause. I know the Churches. I know the people. I know it was the cause.

Now, Debbie, you’ve either alluded to me being a liar, or else you’ve just flat out said it more than once….I am not a liar….I may be many things….but, a liar, I am not. I’m telling you the truth. You are making false accusations about me…over and over again. You’re wrong. I forgive you for your false accusations against me, and I pray that the Lord will not hold it against you.

Now, David, you can’t be telling the truth. If The Debbie can’t verify what you say with research (which to her is looking at the first page of a Google search, snicker 🙂 ) then it just CAN’T be true. The Debbie has said it isn’t true. The Debbie has spoken.

(/sarcasm)

July 28, 2011 12:31 pm

Debbie Kaufman

I read it the first time and responded. We both were deleted, but you just don’t give up huh Joe? I try hard not to respond, but since you are stalking me it’s kind of hard not to. BTW my response was really good. 🙂

Your examples aren’t necessarily universal. They may, in fact, be the exception not the rule. This does not mean the church split stories you offer are wrong nor that you are lying. I’m not disputing that Calvinists have not split churches. I am just not convinced that it is a wide spread problem.

Piggy-backing on what Lydia mentioned above that it probably wasn’t the Calvinism of the pastor that lead to church revitalization, I’d like to point something out. It is most likely true that a Calvinist pastor who has successfully brought a church back to spiritual health did not stand in the pulpit every week and preach TULIP. However, it is also true that one’s theology is going to affect their approach to ministry, Scripture, etc.

That said, I posit that it was not Calvinism but those particular Calvinists that lead to church splits. I say that in light healthy churches, revitalized or otherwise, lead by Calvinists which clearly show that such doctrine can be a good thing.

The handling of one’s theology in the conduct of daily ministry can be deadly to a congregation whether a Calvinist or not. There have been church splits from non-Calvinist congregations too. I think of churches such as Bellevue Baptist, for example.

Again, as a Calvinist, I am aware of such stories. To be fair, it would need to be said that the split came not only as a result of Calvinists but also because of the response of some people to Calvinists and Calvinism.

I am really not attempting to dismiss the allegations that Calvinists have split churches. I’m sorry if it came across that way. I did say that I’m not disputing that Calvinists have not split churches. I am just not convinced that it is a wide spread problem.

I’ve not seen many people blaming non-Calvinistic theology for church splits though there are plenty that happen.

July 28, 2011 9:44 pm

volfan007

Mark,

I’d appreciate it if you’ve stop with the perpetual victim junk. It’s old. Its untrue. And, frankly, I’m tired of hearing it. It appears to just be a veiled, personal attack on me.

How about this then – stop making yourself out to be a victim. I’m tired of that and I’m not the only person to notice it. And it is not veiled and not meant to be. It is also not a personal attack, but an observation. Even in your comment there is a plea toward victim-hood when you said, “It appears to just be a veiled, personal attack on me.”

I’m sorry for the way I’ve responded to you. I offer no excuses or rationale for it. I was wrong.

In Christ,

Mark
John 15:12

July 29, 2011 8:36 am

Debbie Kaufman

David, examples with no corroboration. I believe you will say anything no matter if it is true or not to destroy. You have done it too many times before. Your not alone, others do it too. There is nothing for you to forgive.

July 28, 2011 1:34 pm

volfan007

Debbie,

You and I are thru. I will not be interacting with you, anymore. I have not lied, nor have I done anything to destroy someone. You are a liar.

David

July 28, 2011 2:35 pm

Jason

David,

To be fair, saying “I know a church” isn’t giving an example. Saying that several times isn’t giving “example after example”.

Now, if you don’t feel at liberty to share the church names, I completely understand. But stating instances without giving us church names is not giving “examples”. I think you know that.

For the sake of the discussion…I don’t think anecdotes prove too much.

William says that calvinists have dismissed these accounts. I disagree. I think calvinists have heard these charges and they are always vague and they always deny that churches split for many factors, rarely just one. So they are “wary” of them.

It is unfair to chalk up a church split to just the pastor…or just his theology. Especially if the specific churches aren’t cited, but simply “I know of one (or five)” is stated.

So, am I concerned about pastors causing church splits? Sure. Am I more worried about it because of a certain theological persuasion? No. Until someone can prove to me that this is endemic to the theology, I will not be worried about it. No more than I am worried because my current church has split 4 times in the past 2 decades, all from non-calvinists…or because Blackrock Baptist in Yulee, FL just split because a fundamentalist-revivalist pastor (to give one of many examples of churches split by revivalistic theology). That doesn’t make me wonder if pastors of that theology have a tendency to split churches. It makes me ask what happened there at that particular church.

Anecdotes are anecdotes. Nothing more. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. We would all be wise to recognize that.

July 28, 2011 5:57 pm

volfan007

Jason,

I know that Churches split for all kinds of reasons. Non Calvinist and Calvinist Pastors do things that sometimes leads to strife and division. I never said they didnt. BUT, I do know of these 6 or 7 Churches personally…3 of them are large churches…where the Pastor coming in tried to convert the Church to 5 pt. CALVINISM. That caused the strife. That is what caused the division. I know them personally. I have talked to people in the churches. I have talked to people, who know the churches very well. I have talked to the Pastors, who had to come in and try to straighten up the mess. I told you that one of the churches was where I used to belong to….dont you think I’d know that situation pretty well? Also, my brother and his family belonged to another one, where this happened. Dont you think I’d know that one pretty good? Another one happend where my daughter and son in law were members. Dont you think I’d know that one pretty good?

I think this conversation is pointless. Because, you and Mark and other 5 pointers just dont want to see that this is true. But, you go ahead and continue in your thinking that it could’ve been other things about these churches. I know better. The people in the churches know better. In fact, for example, in 2 of those churches, I know for a fact that one of the first questions they ask any potential pastor…now…after dealing with this…is “Are you a Calvinist?” If the answer is yes, then that Pastor is automatically dropped from consideration.

I can see why churches do this and I have tried to explain why. Still, I hate to see a church so disenchanted with calvinism and calvinists that they automatically eliminate any calvinist from consideration. The best evidence of future conduct would be the pastor’s past record in churches.

Maybe this will all go away if we just don’t think about it right now.

July 28, 2011 7:25 pm

Jason

“The best evidence of future conduct would be the pastor’s past record in churches.”

Exactly.

I have found that it is people that split churches (pastors or deacons or laypeople), not so much theology. Of course theology can often be a factor, even a major factor. But it usually comes back to people.

That is what I have been trying to tell David…there are more factors involved in church splits (usually) than just one thing. (I say that while not denying that some calvinists have caused church splits. That should be obvious.)

July 28, 2011 7:36 pm

Jason

Brother,

I really wish you would actually read what I write instead of assume.

I did not dismiss the charges. I simply said I am wary of them because I don’t know anything about them. No names given, just “I know some churches”. You may very well be right. But I hope you can understand why others are wary of such reports. You say you have given examples…but you haven’t. You simply said you know churches. That is not providing examples. (How do you not see that?) Now, I have no doubt that there are churches out there that have been split over this issue. But I don’t think it is as prevalent as you seem to think, nor do I think we need to assume the one at fault in the split is always the calvinist. I am wary of things I cannot verify. I hope you can understand that.

No denial there at all. Just wariness.

On top of that I added 3 points, which I think you should really consider.
One, we cannot over-simplify the reasons for splits. This is a general statement. Usually splits happen over several issues, not just one. So, in the churches you reference, I am sure Calvinism was an issue, and maybe even THE issue, but it is not the only issue. If it is not the only issue, you cannot ignore the other issues. Of course this will vary from church to church, but it has been my experience that multiple factors lead to splits.
Two, anecdotes do not prove the point. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. So, there could be 100 churches that split, but it does not prove anything except that THOSE 100 churches split. It may lead to some interesting questions about theology and methodology, but in and of themselves it proves nothing. That is where my personal examples fit…which you have ignored 3 times now. That’s fine. Anecdotes are anecdotes, nothing more.
Three, related to #2, we must be very careful not to over or under analyze these scenarios. No one says we should ignore or deny reality. We have much to learn from other people’s failures. But we cannot say that because something happened at X, that it’ll be the same at Y. So, we cannot ignore those situations…I am definitely not in denial about those situations. But we cannot read our own presuppositions into them…and I think you have done so.

The conversation might very well be pointless…but not because I refuse to see anything. If we could analyze a specific situation it might be helpful….but vague observations of “church I know” don’t advance the discussion. They may very well exist, but how can we discuss what we can’t verify? I know you don’t understand that point, but it is huge on this discussion.
I am not naive, I know churches have split over calvinism. My point of disagreement is that church splitting is not inherent in calvinism, so to create a bogeyman based on it is unfair. It’d be like me saying revivalism splits churches because I can name churches (like I did in this comment stream) that split over the issue. I don’t believe it is inherent in the system.

All I am calling for is dealing with the issue fairly. No denial. No ignoring. Just looking at it from a different perspective. You seem unwilling to do so.

One last thought before I call it a night… I think we all know it is human nature (even in the best of men) to relate an event like a church split to cast themselves in the best light. So, have you personally talked to individuals from both sides in these church splits? Or have you only heard from one side of the story?

I would personally be interested in studying what exactly went wrong at these churches. I would find it absolutely fascinating to read through the minutes of their Business meetings, Deacons meeting, and Staff meetings for the prior year; and interview people from both sides, in order to better understand what all was going on in the life of the church leading up to such a tragic outcome.

I know you probably don’t know all this… but I would be willing to do a case study in the failure of the senior leadership of these churches that lead to such a disaster… That is if these churches were willing to allow me such intimate access?

I actually think those days sharpened me and I believe that lively discussion of theological topics is a good thing. But I think Dan hit on something in this morning’s post. Sometimes its not about learning but about winning.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with theological discussion and theological argument. But petty name-calling and such is just ridiculous.

It is my impression that we agree on this, right, Tom?

July 28, 2011 1:18 pm

tom Bryant

Not a thing wrong with it. The reason why they sharpened us was because we were sitting across a dorm room or a coffee shop talking to each other. The problem with the internet is that we are talking at each other.

I don’t think we would be nearly as harsh spirited if we had to look people in the eye.

I think the problem with these sorts of discussions is our motivation for involvement. We don’t come to learn, we come to lash out. We don’t check our weapons at the door, we make sure we are fully loaded with plenty of extra ammunition. We vehemently defend our sacred cows with vitriolic conviction. If we cannot have a civilized discussion with our brothers and sisters in Christ, then who can we have one with? Personally, I stand as an SBC pastor who is non-Calvinist, but I have a close friend who is a staunch Calvinist. We haven’t solved our issues in a “two go in one comes out” duel to the death cage match yet. Maybe here, where we don’t have to look at each other in the eye we are more apt to embrace insulting language. However, if that is the case, what does that say about our true character, whether Calvinist or not?

1. Calvinists can be, well, rather arrogant.
2. I’ve been around too many churches that have been wrecked by Calvinists.
3. Calvinists have been known to be less than forthcoming with search committees.

Is it your position that these three points are consistent identifying marks of Calvinists? Have you thought about what advice you would give Calvinists for correction in these areas?

Also, have you known non-Calvinists who were arrogant, wrecked churches and been less than forthcoming with search committees? If so, do you attribute these things to their theology?

No Mark. They are what I have found in some. I was quite clear on that.

I certainy hope arrogance isn’t theologically driven. Calvinists as a group (OK, broad generalization) to me seem more arrogant. Folks here have explained that as having convictions, being like Jesus, etc rather than arrogance. Fine, we disagree.

The church wrecker calvinists I am familiar with were all driven to agressively implement their theology. The only other group like this I have experienced are charismatics, and I don’t hear much about them in SBC churches anymore.

As to being stealthy with committees, I’ve been told by laypeople that this is the case.

Let me think about your quesiton on advice for calvinists. I’m used to being told what to do and think by calvinists, not asked for advice. 😉

Thanks for the reply and I do know that you stated that these were issues not found in all Calvinists. I should have remembered that in my reply. Sorry.

That leads me to another thought though. Since you are not painting all Calvinists in those three problem areas why does that make you wary of Calvinists? Unless those three areas somehow define your experience with Calvinists it seems they should not make you wary of them.

I want to say something as far as search committees go. Back when Marty Duren ran SBC Out Post he had two threads on search committees. If memory serves me well each thread had between 100 – 200 comments detailing the horror stories of the ineptness of search committees. So…search committees may not always be the most reliable source. Maybe….maybe not. I’m just sayin. 🙂

I was serious about the question of advice you would give Calvinists. Thanks.

Mark, on Search Committees, don’t you have to deal with the reality on the ground, not what you think should be on the ground? When SCs report such things on Calvinists, I’d pay attention were I a Calvinist. Some Calvinists respond as I note in my reason #3.

I’m wary of Calvinists of the bad experiences. I think this is natural and should be expected. For example, my range top doesn’t have to be red hot all the time for me to know to be cautious and careful around it.

July 29, 2011 10:31 am

Benji Ramsaur

I believe in Total Inability, Unconditional Election, Particular Redemption, Effectual calling, and Perseverance of the Saints and yet I do think William has a point in saying “Calvinists can be, well, rather arrogant.”

I think part of this stems from not wanting to be a part of this “relativistic age” in which there is no transcendent truth, but only “TO MEism”.

Well, while I do think there is something to this, I also think there is an opposite extreme in which everything that is declared is spoken with such cocksure absoluteness that it makes it hard to get along with others–including fellow like-minded believers.

So we don’t want relativism? Alright, well, do we want to end up like the Calvinistic Theonomists who have a history of not even getting along with each other?

I personally think there is a place for “tentativeness” in stating one’s beliefs. In fact, I think it tends to make one more persuasive in a dialogical context.

Three other sources where I think Calvinistic “pride”, if you will, comes from are these:

1. Overly Hallowing Church History: Um, “love” was not even included in the “marks of the church”.

2. Overly Hallowing Confessions: Yes, the the concept of a probation period for Adam just jumps off the pages of Genesis…let’s make it binding upon the consciences of others while we’re at it.

3. Overly Hallowing the Voice of the Preacher to the minimization of arriving at the will of God through congregational consensus.

Here’s my point: Calvinists should be worried about the arrogance of Calvinists and non-Calvinists should be worried about the non-Calvinists who attack Calvinists unfairly. We should hold OUR OWN side accountable to the gospel standard.

July 28, 2011 3:37 pm

Jim G.

Agree completely, Benji. I’ve been saying the same thing from the “other side of the fence.”

Jim G.

July 28, 2011 4:10 pm

Lydia

Benji,

Excellent comment and so true on all points. You and Darby Livingston are two of the most balanced “Calvinists” I have come across in the blogosphere when it comes to these types of discussions. I can learn a lot from you both.

You know, I left the seeker world because I saw a lack of understanding on the Sovereignty of God. And, a total lack of teaching on regeneration. How can they teach what they do not know?

But I found some serious problems in what is put forth as Calvinism. Several of them you have mentioned and explained well.

So, I have no where to hang my hat when it comes to the labels. I have decided that is a good thing. My identity should only be in Christ and not with movements, groups or cults of personalities.

July 28, 2011 3:04 pm

Benji Ramsaur

Lydia,

Thank you for your kind comment. I’m honored to be associated with Darby.

I don’t think there is anyone here who has had these Calvinist, so-called discussions for as long as I have, back to the early 90s. I have enjoyed, in a self-flagellating sort of way, the interaction here, brethren/sistren.

Here’s some terms and phrases used re:William and his wariness (allow me a little license to cut context): “arrogant, trolls, noisemakers, unbelievable, don’t care what you think, anti-calvinist, garbage…spewing, despicable monster (followed by the closing ‘Grace for the journey’ Priceless!), divisive, cunning, not helpful, love to stir things up, character assignation, misrepresentation, caricature, drivel, postmodern (Huh? I’m ‘post’ a lot of things but not postmodern), obnoxious, pathetic, sad and pathetic…”

Well, feeling a bit underappreciated for my wit, wisdom and insight I went home and was pleased that my dog still loved me and my wife said she did but for me not to push it, and my cat, well, she didn’t care one way or the other. I’m batting .667 at the old domicile. That’s pretty good.

No, I don’t take it personally. And, yes, I learned some things but if it’s alright with everyone I’ll maintain a bit of wariness towards Calvinists. And I still like a lot of things about my Calvinist brethren and sistren.

I love you too William. I am not sure it’s fair to maintain a wariness towards a group of people who are diverse as “Calvinists”, but I understand, because I struggle with wariness towards people who are. . . whatever you want to label it, “non-Calvinists” or “anti-Calvinists”. I want to know I appreciate your openness and your honesty, even though I don’t agree with you. Both sides of the camp can be hostile, arrogant and cruel to the other sides. While I can disagree with your theology, I can rejoice that we are brothers in Christ, and I trust that you are seeking to serve God in your life and ministry. We agree on our service to Christ, and for that, I love and appreciate you.

I appreciate the fact that you are “smarting a little” from all the hostile responses to this article… but honestly I can’t help but believe that you knew you were kicking a hornets nest, and you kicked it anyway.

And if you honestly can’t tell that my comment “despicable monster” was 100% ‘Tongue-in-cheek’, then perhaps you need some time out in your cage… I’d let you use my cage but Dave wont let me out yet. 🙂

TIC isn’t always obvious. My comment above this was TIC. I don’t take all this too seriously, just with appropriate seriousness.

July 29, 2011 8:58 am

Jason

Man, I have a busy day at the office…I come back and this thing has spiraled completely out of control. 🙂

I want to make an observation…

William made a comment about being told what to do and believe by Calvinists, partly in jest. But I think he hit on something that both sides are guilty of, and that hinders communication on this issue. Too much of the discussion is telling the “other side” what they believe and what they should believe. That causes us to bow up in response. There are assumptions made and conclusions drawn before ever addressing each other’s individual beliefs.

Moreover, criticism from the “other side” is often viewed suspiciously with regard to motive. Non-calvinists are suspicious of calvinists motives to “take over”, calvinists are suspicious of non-calvinists motives to “smoke them out”. There is fear, to some degree, of calvinists or what is perceived to be the “logical end” of their beliefs or what they have heard has happened in other churches. There is resentment, to some degree, of non-calvinists in general because of the mistreatment (real or perceived) by fellow SBC pastors and churches. (There are additional issues as well, along these same lines.)

Because of all of that, both “sides” are outsider speaking across the aisle….and it is not received well, because there is suspicion about the motivating factors for discussion. It is a situation of “I can call my brother an idiot, but I will punch you in the face of you do it”. I trust when others on my “side” try and correct me that they have my best interest at heart…but there is suspicion from others.

These discussions are doomed to this end because of those (and more) factors. That doesn’t mean that there are no positive benefits to these discussions, but if you are curious why they all end up the same…this is my opinion of why.

July 28, 2011 5:37 pm

bill

William,

I really think that if you had phrased your points in non-absolutes then many of these comments would have been avoided.

“1. Calvinists can be, well, rather arrogant.” is an absolute whereas “1. Many Calvinists can be, well, rather arrogant” is a brush stroke that isn’t too broad for many to take.

In fact, though I really don’t know where I fit in this discussion, I would probably tend to agree with you had your position not been couched in absolutes.

And we all know that if you phrase something as an absolute, then people will feel compelled to prove that your absolute, rather than your point, is incorrect.

I also tend to think that much of this controversy has to deal with the outliers, the fringe, of both sides who exemplify the broad brushstrokes and absolutes being employed.

William, as with Jared Moore, you put out good stuff. Keep up the good work.

I was asked for advice for calvinists. No one owes me anything and my free advice may have exactly that value but here is some concise advice in regard to search committees and calvinist prospective pastors:

Don’t try to hide your convictions. To do so is cowardly and dishonest and has no place in Gospel ministry.

July 29, 2011 8:53 am

Jason

William, I think everyone agrees with you on that. I have never seen anyone disagree on that point at all. Have you?

I also don’t believe that this is a prevalent problem. It’s, yet again, an easy accusation to make, but it’s really hard to prove.

The PSC at most churches are not equipped to handle this issue (and many others) from a biblical and theological perspective. I did not hide my convictions at all, but I also never said the word “calvinism” because I just don’t use that word in preaching or teaching or discussion. Did I hide my convictions? No way, I stated clearly my perspective on these issues. But thet could rightly say “he never mentioned calvinism”. You see what I mean?

Most PSC’s also don’t keep detailed records of the questions they ask and the responses, so it’s hard to know (or remember, years after the fact) what was TRULY discussed in those meetings. Sometimes in the zeal to hire a pastor, they might overlook things at that time that later they realize they shouldn’t have. All of that on top of the fact that most PSCs don’t know the theological questions to ask. I think we have all experienced that.

Tom Ascol once said something to the effect that this accusation is a little bit of a catch22. Calvinists get accused of hiding their beliefs, but if they go in an lay their cards on the table they get accused of “pushing calvinism”.

Lots of issues contribute to this accusation and complicate the whole thing.

I am not denying that there have been some calvinistic pastors that have been dishonest about their belief. I would chalk most pastors up as probably not lying, but simply not disclosing their views on this issue. I’m not sure if that is dishonest or not. There are a lot of issues and beliefs I hold that I did not disclose to them…not out of devious cunning, but because they did not ask and I didn’t think to share or didn’t think it necessary to share. Is that cowardly? I don’t think so. The PSC process does not allow full disclosure on every issue. So, we need to be careful how we frame the accusation. None of us give full disclosure on everything we believe.

But we are all on the same page that lying and being purposefully evasive and dishonest has zero place whatsoever in Gospel ministry.

My question is this: if you were talking to a pastoral search team in a demonimination where Calvinism is allegedly causing some strife, and you held strong Calvinist beliefs, why wouldn’t you as the potential pastor bring it up? Doesn’t that seem like the wise thing to do? An interview should work both ways. As I’ve been interviewed for secular and ministry positions, I always ask questions of those interviewing me. I bet we could all agree that the pastor’s theology is important to the congregation. Should we leave any doubts about that? I am confident that my current church is clear about where I stand on Calvinism (that being non-Calvinist) and has been since the beginning. Did I sit down and say, “Hey, I’m not a Calvinist.” No, but I have said as much from the pulpit and in Bible studies and nobody was surprised. I think perhaps the key thing here is tranparency and honesty, especially in areas of theology.

I’ve got a good friend who is a deacon and Sunday School teacher who is a staunch Calvinist (as I mentioned before) and he has no problem letting people know that in concise language. I don’t think that is too much to ask.

July 30, 2011 9:35 am

Jim G.

Hi Randy,

That is an excellent point. Job interviews go both ways. If a man interviewing to be a pastor holds strong convictions about any topic that could be even the least bit in dispute, by all means he should disclose that position to the church to make sure the position is a good fit for him and them.

A strong Calvinist interviewing in a solidly non-Calvinist church (or, equivalently, a strong non-Calvinist interviewing in a solidly Calvinist church) should at least fully disclose that belief whether asked to do so or not. That way, all the cards are on the table. Often, would-be-pastors are better equipped than search committees to know what to ask. I know I have gone on job interviews where I knew what to ask better than my potential employer. So I answered the question without being asked. I think that is the ethical thing to do.

Sometimes, we are better off not getting the job. And so is everyone else.

In truth this is no longer an issue in the SBC… It might have been an issue 5-10 years ago, but not today.

Calvinist Pastor today have gotten beat up so much by these Traditionalist Churches that the vast majority of Calvinist Pastors in the SBC will not even consider sending their resume’ to one of these Churches. If it’s not a solid Calvinist Church or a new work the Young Calvinist Pastors coming out of Seminary today simply are not interested… and honestly, Why would they be?

I have for many years now strongly advised Young Calvinist Pastors to become Church Planters or Missionaries… and by the numbers that are doing so (see Acts 29 Network) I would say they have gotten the message. So for the most part this is not an issue that we are dealing with in the SBC anymore.

I guess the next battle ground for those who hate Calvinism will be trying to keep all these new Baptist Churches that are being started by these Young Calvinist Pastors out of their local associations, state conventions, and the SBC. But that is another issue for another day.

I question your conclusion that “for the most part this is not an issue that we are dealing with in the SBC anymore.” Almost all SBC churches are traditional. If the 30% of recent seminary grads who are calvinists aren’t interested in these, there would have to be a lot of grads who are not in the pastoral ministry.
I don’t think there are enough being appointed mssys or planting churches to absorb almost one-third of recent seminary grads.

You may also question my conclusions all that you like… But seeing as we can’t get a single example to verify any of the allegations that Calvinist are sneaking into churches by being dishonest and then destroying them… I guess we can’t settle the question if this was a problem in the past, or the present, now can we? I guess we can ask 007 and he can tell us right?

Can you prove that this is an ongoing issue William? Do you have any numbers to back up what you say? Can you send me a list of churches that were recently destroyed by one of these sneaky & dishonest Calvinist? NO?

I am sure that a few Calvinist graduating from seminary today do find a place to serve in our traditional baptist churches (Not all traditional baptist churches are ruled by an Anti-Calvinist Church Boss). However, the larger part of these Young Calvinist are seeking to start something new.

I guess I’m the only one who is intensely tired of this debate. Greg, you’ve been making the same point for days – that Calvinists are victims in the SBC. We’ve heard the point. Others have been hammering the same point on the other side.

Greg, for the record, I have no axe to grind with you. I do, however, think that at times you are both unnecessarily aggressive and defensive in your comments. I think you should try to understand and not misrepresent those you dialog with.

Alford,
Maybe you are reading some things into my statements I am not saying. My whole point is just be up front in an interview. I am not saying I do not work shoulder to shoulder on the front lines with Calvinist leaders in my local association. I am not a “witch-hunter” trying to root them out. I have enjoyed stimulating conversation with Calvinist brothers and sisters in Christ. We have agreed to disagree on certain theological points, but rejoice in agreement on salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe Satan uses divisive issues like this to derail the work of the church as a whole. Calvinism is not of the devil, but dissension is.

I will however like to say that the interview process is a two way street. If the church’s pastoral search committee feels like a Calvinist is not qualified or worthy to serve as their pastor perhaps they need to simply put “No Calvinist Need Apply” on the top of their job applications and that would pretty much assure them that they would never have a church split over Calvinism. Right? I mean if we are calling for full disclosure then these churches need to come clean with these young pastors up front concerning their prejudice against Calvinist, and not just try to blame a conflict on Calvinism/Calvinist after the fact (that might not actually have had all that much to do with Calvinism) in order to try and save face in the community. (Something I have seen happen more than once…)